PDA

View Full Version : [4e] Races; Your thoughts?



Paragon Badger
2008-06-26, 02:30 AM
...But I'll mine out there first. :smalltongue:

Dragonborn.

I hate them. :smalltongue: I've called them Bangaa repeatedly on this forum and among my friends because I hated those things, too.

As a person who tries to put roleplaying above all else; I tend to try and envision myself in my character's shoes. This is slightly hard when said character does not resemble a human in any way. Worse, it's a lizard's head with a person's scaly body attached. I automatically think of them as tall guys in cheap lizard suits from those 50s horror movies. The art does paint them more nobly than I first envisioned, and it's helped alleviate the laughable mental images.

And they aren't a terrible race, fluff-wise... just not one that I want in the PHB. Core races indicate a mainstream emphasis, which most of the times will restrict the majority of your characters to be core. I'd be fine if the dragonborn were in the Monster Manual's list of PC races. The dragonborn is like the funky alien member of a quirky miniboss squad.

I know there are those furries and there are people that love dragons, a friend of mine plays half-dragons alot... but that's what monster to PC race conversions are for.

A true shame because they have some pretty decent abilities, and are an all-round tough race. It's a good mechanical design, but they just seem too forced for me to ever enjoy roleplaying one.

Dwarves
Their mechanical design is great, it fits them very well. Fluff-wise? Not much to say, it's something we've seen before, and it's not bad...

Eladrin, Elves, and Half-Elves
I put them together because...let's face it; they're fundamentally the same.

But let's start with Eladrin. Again, they aren't horrible alone...but they're horrible for the PHB.

They're elves but...elvier. Granted, 4e's elves have changed alot, but these two races are fundamentally similiar enough that only one should be in the PHB, and the other as a playable subrace in the MM, as I said with the dragonbron.

3.5's subraces for elves were the Wild Elf and Gray Elf (and perhaps others I can't recall...) who are great as subraces, but not so much as a standalone. Eladrin are standalone. I can't help but think of them as elves with more magic. They lack a signifigant cultural or thematic difference to one-another that all other races have. (Compare a Halfling to a Dwarf. An Elf to a Human. Now compare an Eladrin to an Elf.)

We have three elvey races in Core; Sophisticated & Magical. Aloof & Nature-y. That last one but Human-y.

This is far too many. I mean, there's only so much variety you can squeeze out of three races that have the same origins. Yes, Eladrin live in high magical spires and Elves live in woodsy coves. As I said- This is good enough for the MM, not for the PHB.

Half-elves i've never liked either... I find them difficult to roleplay. Humans can be any archetype, while elves are still diverse, they have a few common themes. Half-elves... it's like fusing an apple with some magical fruit that can taste like any other fruit. Half of its' still an apple.

But that's just me. :smalltongue:

Mechanically?

The Eladrin's mini-teleport seems almost too magical. It fits their fluff perfectly, but seems out-of-place when you consider all the other core races have powers that more or less seem very down-to-earth. (Even the dragonborn's breath is dsecribed as a part of their physiology) Like I said, everything about them screams 'exotic MM race that you have to convince your DM to let you play'... but with them being in core; they're heavily implied to be the norm- and the DM can't so easily wave them off. Woe be unto the DM if he thinks he can make a low-magic setting with any Eladrin nearby. Even an Eladrin fighter will be teleporting left and right. Aside from that, they seem rather...mundane. An extra class skill and a weapon proficiency with some will saves... Yeah, that's..nice?

Elves seem pretty well-designed. They have some boring abilities apart from the Elven Accuracy; which I'm rather fond of. Perfect from that botched attack roll. Group awareness seems... supernatural?

Why do Half-Elves get +2 to Con and Cha? It seems like they tacked on whatever combination of ability scores the other races didn't grant.

Dilettante seems..okay. I have no problems with it, per se.. But it seems like they had no better ideas than to give the Half-Elf a multiclass-like ability rather than something unique.

Dual heritage fits.

I don't like group diplomacy either. It's even more nonsensical than group awareness; I'm suddenly more persuasive when my half-elf buddy is around? If it was like some magical aura; okay... but doesn't make sense if it's a mundane ability.

Halflings
I'm rather pleased with the changes to the halflings now. Fluff remains unchanged, which i enjoy.. Mechanically is where they shine. I really like how well their abilities fit their 'lucky & plucky' archetype.

Humans
Not much to say. Very well mechanically designed. They only get +2 to one ability, but it's freely chosen, and the special abilities more than make up for their lack of a second ability bonus.

Tieflings... Oh god, Tieflings.
I loathingly abhor them with every fiber of my being.

Let's start with mechanics first, just to be nice.

Infernal wrath seems a bit weak compared to the other race's abilities (The Elves and Halfling in particular) You gain a +1 bonus to attack (whoop-de-doo) and a save-or-suck charisma bonus to damage. Err... Hit-or-suck charisma bonus. At least 3.5's Smite Something greatly increased the chances of your attack hitting as well. Compared to other races, this isn't nearly as good as the Elves ability to reroll any terrible attack roll (or the halflings' ability to reroll any enemy's attack roll, especcially criticals) and their other abilities do not make up for it.

The other abilities are spectacularly meh. Bloodhunt means they get a meager +1 attack bonus to any bloodied enemy... but most parties usually focus on the lowest HP enemy anyways, so...

Fire resistence... Well, it either comes in handy or it doesn't. A wasted ability if the party doesn't face any fire monsters for awhile. A very very poor race, mechanically. At least compared to the other core races.

A shame that the +2 Int and +2 Cha combination was wasted on them; since there are quite a number of players who love roleplaying both smart and sexy.

Fluff-wise?

DEAR GODs. :smallfurious:


Play a tiefling if you want...
* to be a hero who has a dark side to overcome

Some young tieflings, striving to find a place in the world, choose a name that signifies a concept and then try to embody the concept. For some, the chosen name is a noble quest. For others, it’s a grim destiny.

Modern Names: Art, Carrion, Chant, Despair, Fear, Gladness, Hope, Ideal, Music, Nowhere, Open, Poetry, Quest, Random, Reverence, Sorrow, Torment, Weary

How often has 'Darker and Edgier' failed miserably? Look at all the comic books who tried to take heroes and make them grim and brooding... They just end up wangsty. Drizzt Do'Urden (arguably) pulls this off well, but serves as a posterboy for all the characters who don't.

Now, a good writer may be able to pull this off. ...Maybe.

But D&D is more-or-less a shared universe. As a player, we take the standard race's building blocks and put our own spin on it. But tieflings are, at their basic fundamental building blocks; distrusted outcasts. (Who are sometimes angsty and spiteful, or sometimes just misunderstood and lonely until they get friends.)

How many options does this leave me with? I feel restricted as a player.

I'm speaking ideally, too, as if everyone who played D&D came up with well-thought out and deep character concepts. But let's face it; many players do not. Especcially since D&D is trying to convert the video game crowd (and it is!). If I have trouble finding a unique character concept with tieflings (after pondering on it for hours on end since I've gotten the books), how original do you think the new roleplayer will be? Drizzt Do'Urden with horns. At least Chaotic Evil killbots are infuriating instead of mind-numbingly annoying. And easier to deal with, too. Stab in the face for great justice.

I also say new roleplayer, not bad roleplayer. I've been writing long before I started playing D&D, and my original concepts were more or less copies of existing stories. (Thank god I wasn't published; I'd be Chris Paolini!) As an artist, too; my style was heavily influenced by others until I found my own and developed that. I believe it's the same with roleplaying; newbies tend to use specific archetypes or their favorite concepts before they venture into unknown territory. It's not neccesarily wrong at that level, merely a method of teaching yourself the basics. Just a theory. Some whacky people subvert this, of course. :smallwink:

Now Non-Core Races;

I really wish they made some of the other races into more than just laughable fodder. I can't help but automatically think of goblins as cowardly little imps who speak silly. Even in a campaign I ran where they were super commandos with rogue class levels for the big bad's army... I had to change their skin to make them the goblin equivalent of drow. Otherwise, they were still just too silly. 3 feet tall? >_<

I'll go through them one-at-a-time, like above. (Going off of the examples in page 276 in the MM for this)

Bugbear
Apart from the silly name, they'd be an interesting race to play as if it wasn't for this;


Big, tough goblins that love to fight, bugbears are the champions, picked guards, and muscle for more clever goblins.

DC 15: A bugbear has little tolerance for talk and resorts to conversation only if the advantage of doing so is apparent. The most common situation is when foes are too strong to challenge openly.

They don't have an Int penalty, heck; the listed Bugbears have 10 Int and FOURTEEN wisdom. The listed goblins have 8 and 12 respectively. Thanks for the downright contadictory evidence, Monster Manual. If I ever play a bugbear, he's going to be a smart tactician who can hold his own in both a strong man's and thinking man's battle. If the DM has us fight stupid bugbears, I'll whine. :P

-And It's hard for people to get pre-conceptions out of their heads. The 4E bugbears are more intelligent and wise than their 3e cousins, but the fluff remains the same; Laughable fodder like goblins, but bigger.

Mechanically, I find them tolerable. Oversized seems right if you roleplay them as big brutes, but you all know I don't like bugbears as that. :smallwink: Then again, they are seven feet tall. The bonus to dex seems...misplaced.

Doppelganger
What's there to say? Mechanically, they're fine (if not overpowered simply because of their name-sake ability, but really... it's change shape- what could you do?)

Drow
Again, what's there to say, fluff-wise? Also mechanically beautiful. Darkfire's ability to grant combat advantage seems unusual, though- as it doesn't say that it impedes the target's ability to defend itself..

Aside from that, I love the drow's abilities- they fit the race's stealthy killer persona perfectly.

Githyanki and Githzerai
I was never a big fan of the Giths for the some reason, but anyways;

Fluff-wise, I just don't like them. Can't tell you why, so I can't back it up with any solid arguements. :smallwink:

Mechanically, the Githyanki seem very solid. +2 initiative checks and a Con bonus aren't bad to have, and the telekentic leap can be used both in battle to bring your melee fighters up in the first turn or out of battle to grant a short burst of 3D mobility.

Githzerai have a fairly decent special ability, though nothing like the halfling's.

Gnoll
I like gnolls, and I'd really like to subvert their stereotypical nature... but they've gotten pretty damn barbaric in 4e. They seem to be confined to being tribal infant eaters with no real culture other than a constant need to kill. Boring.

I'd like to see a wolf-like Gnoll, where they hunt as a pack and are very close-knit.

Mechanically, they can become quite fearsome if they land a hit while bloodied, though their Ferocious charge suffers from hit-or-suck.

Gnome
Well...they're gnomes, quirky comic relief for parties everywhere. Mechanically, they have great abilities. Reactive Stealth and Fade Away seem like great things to fit a stealthy assassin's ability- but...they're gnomes. To be fair, the description makes them seem much more badass. In fact, they seem more like elves now; attacking from concealed positions in the woods, all skirmisher-like. It's still hard to get over the fact that they are gnomes, though. :smallwink:

Goblin
Le sigh. They are pretty much the same as they were in previous editions; Cowardly, stupid, and painfully cliche.

That being said; they have a decent statblock. Their racial ability is very subtley useful. +2 Charisma? Goblins got sexy. (But not smarter.)

Hobgoblin
Thank god for Rich. Oots' hobgoblins kick some serious ass. Mechanically, so do 4e's...sorta. The special ability is useful in only a few situations, though- enemies who don't often use enduring effect powers kind of nerf the hobbo's only distinguishing characteristic. Extra initiative and two useful ability increases are nice, but rather dull by themselves. Again, +2 Charisma? Did anyone working on this chapter *read* the statblocks of the monsters they were converting to PC races?

Fluff-wise, I never understood why Hobgoblins are martial and organized when gobbos and bugbears aren't. Aside from that, we don't know much about these intriguing creatures... I'd like to know more. ^_^

Kobold
Goblins, but more lizardy.

...Stupid little things.

+2 Constitution? Didn't everyone love them for how fragile they were? Rather meh, both fluff-wise and mechanically, but I'm rather biased as I feel kobolds are just goblins with scales.

Minotaur
Finally, ability bonuses that make sense. Mechanically, oversized makes more sense than it does for bugbears and the Minotaur actually seems pretty well-designed for its tank/striker status. Fluff-wise... Some are lone Demon-worshippers while there are entire Minotaur cities, which is an interesting twist. They run the gamut of good and evil, barbaric and priestly. I didn't guess it before reading up their entry just now, but they seem to make for a great player race; almost like the Tauren from Warcraft. ...Coincidence? >_>

Either way, I like the Minotaur. I'll look forward to play a genius bruiser Minotaur.

Orc
Aaahh..the orc. Let's see... Mechanically, the abilities fit the fluff VERY well, though they only have two, and both have limited usage (not likely to charge multiple times in a battle..) and they get an appropriate str and con bonus. But have we seen an end to the stereotypical thog?


Orcs worship Gruumsh, the one-eyed god of slaughter, and are savage, bloodthirsty marauders. They plague the civilized races of the world and also fight among themselves for scraps of food and treasure.

Apparantly not. Le sigh. How could such a backwards people even exist for long anyways? Woulden't the lack of long-term settlement and agriculture be a hindrance to sustaining their large population (or any large population) One bad winter and tribal societies are in trouble. Not to mention they're perfectly kosher for the goodly races to kill without feeling bad about it later. How are they not extinct?

Whatever, next!

Shadar-Kai
I rather like these guys.. A great ability and some amazing fluff. I'll definately play one of them if I get the chance. See? This could have been a much better race for core than Eladrin. They have a very different culture from any other race and carry with them a unique demeanor. I've even made them core for my campaign setting in lieu of Eladrin. :smallbiggrin:

Shifter, Longtooth and Shifter, Razorclaw
Interesting, A race for the furries. The fluff in their entry doesn't describe them much at all, but this is a good thing. What little description is sufficient; they're wild furry men and women of the plains and forests and such. They worship nature and the moon and are related to lycanthropes. I rather like this race- can give the player alot of options with how to roleplay one.

Stat-wise, they look pretty good and balanced, though the longtooth has a definate advantage with its special ability. The Razorclaw could use some work.. The abilities are very fitting, though.

Warforged
Oh, warforged- how loved are thee. Never understood the big attraction. A robot with thoughts (and sometimes feelings!) designed to fight wars... eh. Do warforged dream of electronic sheep? I, warforged?

That being said, they have a decent statblock. Doesn't stand out as particularly amazing, though.. They have appropriate abilities, at least.

And that's all of them! Phew. I did not expect for this post to go on for so long... Yeah, what started as a rant became an analyzation of each race's fluff and how its mechanics represented that fluff. And then I looked through monsters, and... yeah.. Well, I veered off into speaking like an objective observer towards the end; but keep in mind, these are all my opinions and I'm not trying to say I hold a monopoly on truth. :P And a good deal of my judgements on their mechanics is presumption, since none of my friends want to try 4e. T_T

But in the end, I'd definately drop the Eladrin, Tiefling, and Bangaa.

I'd add the Shadar-Kai (to replace the Eladrin) and Shifter (Tiefling) as core races. I know I made a beef about how the dragonborn was too un-human to empathize with, but the Shifter is about as un-human as the tiefling... And they have semi-humanoid faces- Not giant lizard heads, at least.

There isn't really a good substitute for the dragonborn, as most races who could fill their niche suffer the same flaw; not human enough for most people to vicariously live with as a character. Rather than having deep and complex emotions, I just get a "Rawr, Imma' a proud warrior race of all dragonssss who doth protesssst too much!" vibe whenever I consider dragonborn character concepts. Like a lizard-faced mandalorian without the accent or badass factor. No wait, scratch that- Mandalorians have far too well-written a culture to be compared to Bangaa. :smallwink:

By the way, my repeated arguement of 'not human enough' is backed up by a trend in demographics. Most Sci-Fi/Fantasy stories feature humans(or near-humans) as main characters, and for good reason; audiences have difficulty feeling empathy for squid monster protagonists. Being a mammal helps, it appears.

But enough of my musings, what are YOUR opinions?

Tempest Fennac
2008-06-26, 02:39 AM
I know what you mean about Tieflings sounding annoying. I'm in favour of more half-animal races as standard races to be honest (the 7 standrd races in 3.5 Edition are all basically just modified humans). Incidentally, are Lupins and Phanatons included in 4th Edition? (I haven't been following it that closely). In regards to Gnolls, I'd get round that problem by just ignoring the listed alignments while assuming that there's plenty of Good and Neutral ones scattered about (I can imagine them as being hedonistic while being likely to worship Kord or Sharess while having a love of athletic competition while not being particularly interested in music* while still wanting to avoid heavy labour). I prefered Halflings in earlier editions (I just prefer the idea of them being smaller because it sets them apart from hmans more).

*This is based on how they are such a poor race choice if you're making a Bard in 3.5 Edition, but it isn't that relevant to 4th Edition.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-06-26, 03:49 AM
Very original. You'd think complaining about dragonborn and tieflings would be a bit played out already.

Paragon Badger
2008-06-26, 04:35 AM
Very original. You'd think complaining about dragonborn and tieflings would be a bit played out already.

Considering I spent well over an hour reading the PHB and MM to present a semi-informed view, the least you could do is refrain from making some snippy whine without contributing anything meaningful to the discussion. :smallannoyed:

I DID check the forum for a topic devoted solely to an analyzation of the 4e races. It lacked one.

Yes, people complain about the dragonborn and tieflings. But EXCUSE me for trying to give voice to WHY people complain about them beyond 'They r gay.' :smallsigh:

In fact, I created this thread for the sole purpose of trying to get Pro-Dragonborn and Tiefling players to voice their thoughts. I'm really trying to like these two races, I am. Maybe a different perspective will help make them playable. I'm hoping.

Kaja Rainbow
2008-06-26, 04:39 AM
Some pretty good thoughts on those races. I'm okay with dragonborn, I don't mind alien beings (see my comment below about monstrous manual races being my favorite), though the friend that pointed me to this commented that perhaps them and tieflings were too many alien races in the core PHB. A little too proud and noble for my personal taste generally. Though I can see myself playing one at some time, I'm playing a kirin character in a BESM game who isn't too dissimilar (if she was in D&D, she would most likely be a Lawful Good Paladin or at least Fighter). Again, not much wrong with them, just personal taste.

...Actually, you know what? They do emphasis the whole nobility angle with dragonborn too much. Then again, rampant typecasting's all over the place, this is just a particularly bad example of such. General tendencies is one thing, but the extent to which they go is another. Dragonborn seem more down-to-earth than, say, kirin or unicorns, so they don't have the excuses of being direct mythological embodiments of particular notions of virtue. Anyway, even with what I do like about dragonborn, I wouldn't object to them being in the Monstrous Manual instead of the PHB.

Tieflings... said friend commented that they'd do better flavor-wise with Con than Int. But then again, 4E has some weird stat bonuses, which are relatively easy to fix (just assign different ones). And I agree with your comments on the fluff, though I can come up with non-wangsty concepts easily. But the fluff is still rather lame. I'd be fine with them being not in the PHB--and specifically with them being in the same book as other 'plane-touched' races.

Too many elves, agreed. Two is enough (the standard race and the halfbreed people seem to want). The Dilettante ability is... allright, I suppose. It's plain that they wanted to capture the half-elf's not-of-either-world quality somehow, but, yeah, this was apparently just the best they could manage.

The monstrous manual race fluff--lots of them're just carrying on the pretty lame justifications from previous editions of "you can slaughter them any time because they're just savage barbarians". At any rate, they're still strawmen to beat on without guilt. I prefer a more complex picture myself.

But, I tend to just play with my own fluff in my mind. I'm doing it for my goblin rogue, most certainly. I do somewhat like the thought of playing a generally disadvantaged race, disrespected by many people, and still kicking ass regardless. The whole "climbing from the bottom" thing.

Orcs, gnolls, races like those, I prefer to give them a fierce edge but not so much lack of civilization or even basic decency. Gnolls... They're basically hyena-people after all. I like to think of them in terms of "What would hyenas be like, if they were people?" Hyenas have some fascinating aspects to them--the females're even more masculine than the males, for example. What would a hyper-masculine race be like? Admittedly, the monstrous manual races're kinda like a caricature of that already, but I think it's possible to do far more interesting things with that. The pack thing's good, too (hyenas operate in packs just like wolves).

And so on. In short, there's a lot of wasted potential overall with the standard characterizations. That's somewhat of a shame because the monstrous manual races have generally been my favorites (which's why I'm happy with the dropping of level adjustments and stat penalties, it makes them overall more playable for a broader range of concepts).

I love changelings, so I'm happy to see the dopplegangers as a race option in the first MM. It seems like they choose to power-down dopplegangers instead of choosing to go with 'doppleganger-blooded' people again. Doesn't bother me too terribly.

BloodyAngel
2008-06-26, 05:09 AM
Ultimately, I think it mostly comes down to taste. I'm a fan of elves AND tieflings personally. For Eladrin... they're fey. Ethereal and mystical. Yeah, in a setting intended to be low magic, they feel a bit too... well... magic-y. I prefer to them to normal elves in 4th ed... I compare them to stories of Puck, Oberon and the like... the isle of Avalon. They ARE magic, to an extent. Saying they should be left out for being "too magical" is a bit silly. If a DM wants a heavy magic setting... they're fine. We wouldn't leave out a race for being "too mundane", would we?

My thought is that they wanted to go a new, fey route with the elves... but felt that they would irritate fans by deserting the old elves that people used to play. So they kept in elves and half elves... because they've pretty much always been there. In 2nd edition, half-elves were the race to be if you wanted to multiclass... their thing is supposed to be versitility. Humans thing was quite the opposite, being fanatically devoted to a single thing, more often than not. In 3rd, this flipped... and half elves were crap. They flipped it back, it seems. Did they do it well? That's for each person to decide. I'll admit that their ability scores make no sense...

As for Tieflings... I like the look. I've always likes Tieflings. What I DISLIKE... is the book literally saying that crap about them having names like "Tragedy" or "Agony" or "Subconscious Bemusement" or whatever. That was clearly pandering to the emo crowd and the people who think wangst alone makes you a roleplayer. My reason for liking Tieflings is simple. Tails are cool. Horns are cool. Horns AND tails... are awesome. I like the demonic look. If they had bat wings, I would squee with glee and dance all over them. But I would not name them "Wangstasia" or whatever self-pitying crap they came up with... And I'm a morbid goth!!!

If the only kind of tiefling you can come up with is "Behold my dark, tragic wangst" then you can not really call yourself a roleplayer. A character can be dark without being annoying... and can be troubled without being a schmuck. A character can also be bright and cheery... Like Kyra, a tiefling rogue... who swashbuckles her way around, dancing, singing, stealing, conning people and having fun. She treats life as a game, is charmingly upbeat and roguish... and just happens to be a tiefling. She's never wangsted in her life... though she'd fake it in a minute to get some poor SOB to buy her a warm meal. She's also, a tiefling. Why? Because I thought that a 16 year old girl with red skin, horns and a tail that waved around when she was excited was adorable. :smalltongue:

In short... don't poo the race... poo the player. If you close off a race and hate it on principle... you miss out on the one truly good player who might just make an enjoyable character out of it and change your mind. I've got my share of races I dislike. Warforged, for one. I think they're jut awful. I've never been in a game where someone played one and impressed me. Quite the opposite. But I'll allow them in my games... and hope someone changes my mind. :smallwink:

Morty
2008-06-26, 05:25 AM
Good points all over. That's preety much how I feel about the races. Dragonborn and Tieflings are just fanboy bait and "monstrous" races are still convenient cannon fodder.

Charity
2008-06-26, 05:32 AM
Hey PB,
I'm not sure anyone is going to be able to convince you to like something that you don't.
I quite like the fact that Dragonborn are less human looking than the other races, not just humans with pointy ears, or beards or shorter etc, but each to their own.
Though disliking Tieflings for being angsty then using Shadar-Kai instead of Eldarin does seem a bit odd... they are the goth wannabees of the MM,
I must confess to not appreciating the elven swing of the PHB but there has always been a lot of love for the pointy eared prancers out there.

Edit ^ because your tastes are somehow more valid than the 'fanboys' yes?

Morty
2008-06-26, 05:43 AM
Edit ^ because your tastes are somehow more valid than the 'fanboys' yes?

No, not really. But it doesn't change the fact that I see Dragonborn and Tieflings as added to the PHB to be coold devil/dragon guys and therefore attract attention because standard D&D races aren't cool enough. I mean, it's even in PHB: "play a dragonborn if you want your character to look like a dragon". Now, I didn't mind Tieflings in 3ed, but in 4ed they're rubbed in our faces as a core race just without most of the features that made them good in 3ed. The mixed heritage and subtle inhuman features are gone, now they're devil people with huge horns and tails.

bosssmiley
2008-06-26, 05:45 AM
The 4E tieflings are a bad and tasteless joke compared to Planescape ones.
The Dragonborn are nowt but Draconian-skinned Klingon wannabes.
The Tinkerbells Eladrin are Eladrin in name only. :smallyuk:

More 4E racial slurs here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4484039#post4484039).

Learnedguy
2008-06-26, 06:00 AM
Meh, fluff just exists for me to change it anyway:smallyuk:

With that said, what's important for me is that you get a wide-spread of different kind of races. Warforged, goblins, thieflings, humans, dragonborn etc.

The more diverse they are, the better it is for me (because I'm a lazy bastard who can't be bothered to homebrew my own races).

It's kinda like not playing puzzle at all. You could put the pieces where they fit, but that's boring. Instead you hammer them down in places they don't fit, because the picture gets funnier that way:smallbiggrin:

SamTheCleric
2008-06-26, 06:23 AM
Did you only bold the "angsty" names to make your point about tieflings?

Cause, you know, the name "Hope" doesnt sound very tragic to me... in fact, its one of the more popular names in American culture at the moment. Gladness, Ideal, Quest, Music... all weird names, but not nearly as melodramatic as you make it out to be.

Beyond that, this just seems like another "I hate Dragonborn and Tiefling in my PHB, they changed things from previous editions!" rant. I realize you spent a long time writing it... but this is the same thing thats been said over and over again... you're just more verbose.

Dwarves? Same as always. Elves and Eladrin? Cool, the elves are the wild elves and Eladrin are the high elves. Half-Elves? Much better conceived than previous editions, actually a solid choice mechanically. Halflings? Always loved 'em. Humans? Still the king of the races. Dragonborn? Fun to roleplay, good mechanics, a non "human" looking race. Tiefling? Fun to roleplay, racial abilities a little subpar.

Tempest Fennac
2008-06-26, 06:41 AM
I agree with Kaja's point about Gnolls (technically, male Gnolls should be really submissive as far as females are concerned if you're basing their behaviour on hyenas). I'd probably have males in typically low power positions while having females as being much more likely to enter the millitary as well due to how hyenas act. In regards to Tieflings, I agree with PB that WotC went over the top with them (it wouldn't be as bad if the "recommended names" part of the entry contained names rather then emotions and artforms).

SamTheCleric
2008-06-26, 06:43 AM
(it wouldn't be as bad if the "recommended names" part of the entry contained names rather then emotions and artforms).

There are 3 charts. Male names, Female names and then "Modern" names... which they describe as...


Some young tieflings, striving to find a place in the
world, choose a name that signifies a concept and then
try to embody the concept.

... So its no different than what our stupid teenagers do in real life. The grown ups all have real names.

Blackdrop
2008-06-26, 07:08 AM
... So its no different than what our stupid teenagers do in real life. The grown ups all have real names.


YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE MYSTERIES OF MY HEART! AH!

It sucks that they don't have a Therkla smiley, yet.

I like the dragonborn. What I don't understand is why people get so P.O. over the fact that Aasimar aren't in the game. They just underwent the biggest overhaul of all the races. They're bigger, scalier and they can breath elemental FURY now.

The tieflings are, meh. I'm just going to have to get used to it, 'cause they ain't goin' nowhere.

Dragoon
2008-06-26, 07:25 AM
I think the "modern" names of the Tieflings are supposed to be slightly tongue-in-cheek, since Wotc has done stuff like this before, since I'm pretty sure they had deja vu twice in one of the 3.5 psionic books.

ashmanonar
2008-06-26, 07:40 AM
Meh, fluff just exists for me to change it anyway:smallyuk:

With that said, what's important for me is that you get a wide-spread of different kind of races. Warforged, goblins, thieflings, humans, dragonborn etc.

The more diverse they are, the better it is for me (because I'm a lazy bastard who can't be bothered to homebrew my own races).

It's kinda like not playing puzzle at all. You could put the pieces where they fit, but that's boring. Instead you hammer them down in places they don't fit, because the picture gets funnier that way:smallbiggrin:

Thank you. This is what is bothering me about the OP and this irrational hatred toward Dragonborn, Tiefling, etc, etc, etc.

EVERYTHING IS MUTABLE. The DMG encourages DM's to change things, to shift fluff around, to make it more fun.

Example; in the campaign world I'm building, Dragonborn (well, everybody; wars and plagues killed 70% of the population over a 50 year period) are greatly reduced in number; they're proud and strong, but have also bowed to necessity. They've taken up living in Dens, and hiding underground. They've become more furtive and only leave their dens to go out into the world to find employment (so as to support their fellow dragonborn.)
So they may be proud, but they're also pragmatic. Living in high citadels and exposing themselves to attack no longer makes sense.

Saph
2008-06-26, 08:15 AM
Yeah, I can't really get excited about the new races, either. Dragonborn are . . . lizards. Eh. A bit too non-human for my taste.

And Tieflings seem literally designed to be mocked. Listing those 'concept' names . . . yeesh! I really preferred the more subtle Tieflings, where you had to look closely to see the fiendish heritage.

But I mostly play humans and elves anyway.

- Saph

Gypsy0001
2008-06-26, 08:25 AM
Why do Half-Elves get +2 to Con and Cha? It seems like they tacked on whatever combination of ability scores the other races didn't grant.

If you spend even a couple minutes seriously thinking about it, it makes perfect sense.

As the offspring of two races, half-elves are adaptable and comfortable in disctinctly different cultures and peoples. This ability to adjust their demeanor to best suit the audience they're dealing with spills over into all their interactions. They're better able to appeal to people (+2 diplomacy), their experience with multiple races leaves them better able to read people (+2 insight), and leaves them better able to make themselves fit in among the diverse people's the world has to offer (+2 Cha).

They are also wanderers by nature. Constitution is not soley tied to burly dwarves. It's also the statistic of hearty adventurers and a measure of endurance. Just as marathon runners can be lean and hearty, so too can half-elves. The days and months they spend wandering from place to place leave them with a bit more hardiness than those who tend to stay tied so closely to their home of origin (+2 Con).

I've only touched on half-elves, because I could write a whole novel disagreeing with you. At the end of the day, it just seems very much to me like you're intentionally trying to dislike the character concepts because they're not what you're used to in 3E. How very dwarven of you :)

Alchemistmerlin
2008-06-26, 08:36 AM
My opinions on the races?


Everything is more elf-like now, this disturbs me as someone who's never been a big fan of the fairy-folk. Eladrin, Elves, and Half-Elves.

Total count of pansies: 3

Dwarves

Total count of awesome: 1

I'm joking!

Anyway, they also made the Gnomes, one of my favorite races, more elf-like. This bothers me more than the fact that they were left out of the PHB.

The Dragonborn and the Tieflings I don't like for reasons that will be ranted below but they, as with everything else, seem rather solid from a mechanics standpoint.


My real problem with the new races/changed old races? It all seems very cheap. I hate to use the phrase "selling out" but it seems like they were sitting around going "Alright, what is awesome? Not the good kind of awesome, the bad kind of awesome that 13 year old animu-fanboys like." and they scrapped the gnomes, added an extra scoop of elf, threw some furry on top with a side of emo-demon (can't have animu without demons) and called it a day.

But the math appears to be sound, and I guess in the end that's what matters? What's the emoticon for "half hearted"?

Kurald Galain
2008-06-26, 08:37 AM
If you spend even a couple minutes seriously thinking about it, it makes perfect sense.

In hindsight, given enough handwaving you can make up an arbitrary justification for anything (e.g. any race/score combination). This, however, is not what people tend to consider "making perfect sense".

Giving half-elves a bonus to strength and intelligence, or even to acid resistance and being affected by the phases of the moon, makes as much "perfect sense" as adding to their con and cha.

Tempest Fennac
2008-06-26, 08:39 AM
I know what you mean (I'd personally give them +2 Cha due to how they typically seemed to be good with social skills in 3rd Edition, with the other bonus going to Dex due to how they are likely to be more dextrous then normal humans). I never got why they eliminated the Gnoll's Str bonus in place of Dex (they look awkward rather then agile to me).

namo
2008-06-26, 08:51 AM
The main oddity to me is the Half-Elf having little in common with either of its parents... but I guess I'll just try to forget about that if I ever play one.

As for the fluff: as usual, ditch the D&D basic one. Look to Eberron for more interesting premises. (Perhaps Planescape too but I'm not as familiar with it.)

Kaja Rainbow
2008-06-26, 09:24 AM
I agree with Kaja's point about Gnolls (technically, male Gnolls should be really submissive as far as females are concerned if you're basing their behaviour on hyenas).

I didn't want to turn it into a post entirely about Gnolls, so that was one of the points I omitted. Seriously. I could easily do a whole post theorizing about Gnoll society and so on. :smallwink:

Yeah, flavor's there to be repurposed. Really, to a certain amount all the races're somewhat typecast, because there's only so much space they can go into in the PHB, though they didn't even bother listing even token variation in culture or whatnot.

Flavor changes I would make: more subtle tieflings, make dragonborn less oriented around battle-honor (though still with a tendency toward pride, but geezus, look at how much personality variety there're in D&D dragons themselves)... The goblins and kobolds, well, consider how their small sizes might've led them to disfavor brute-force solutions, which might lead to behavior that would land them a reputation of being sneaky and disreputable, but they're just making the best of their lot. I wouldn't treat them as laughable morons incapable of making a worthwhile civilizations. Plus, kobolds have dragon relations going for them (or did 4E do away with that?).

And, of course, personality variation. If you look closely at humans, we have our own blatant psychological tendencies, but we still manage enormous variety despite that.

After taking a closer view at the dragonborn fluff, by the way, my kirin isn't really very like that at all. If there was actually an Aasimar race, that'd probably be the closet to my kirin. Point is, the people who pretty much want to play roughly the opposite of tieflings aren't yet being serviced, though I wouldn't be surprised if aasimar popped up later.

That said, there're notably more variety in the first PHB races (don't forget there'll be more PHBs), notwithstanding the three elven races. Basically, humans, three elf races, two smaller humanoid races, scaly folks, planetouched (infernal), where all the earlier PHB races were 100% humanoid. Considering it another way, six humanoid and two less-humanoid. I'm pretty sure diversity was their deliberate goal. Let's not forget that earlier editions had... seven humanoid races. That's not much of a reduction.

Gypsy0001
2008-06-26, 09:36 AM
The main oddity to me is the Half-Elf having little in common with either of its parents... but I guess I'll just try to forget about that if I ever play one.

If you think half-elves should take the bonuses elves and humans get, cut them in half, and stick them on then yes, it would be odd. This is the most simplistic approach and the one taken in 3E (where half-elf was a total crap race that no one played except for the occasional die-hard roleplayer).

Another approach, the one taken in 4E and one I like much better, is to treat half-elves as a unique race within the game-world, from the viewpoint of the ease with which they move through cultures.

In high fantasy, racial groups tend to be fairly exclusive. Eladrin live with other Eladrin in their high spired cities. Dwarves live with other dwarves in their mountain halls. Etc Etc.

Half-elves, on the other hand, because of their dual heritage, really have it in their nature to bridge cultures and build relationships among multiple faiths. There is no half-elf empire because the half-elves are wandering the roads between the empires of the other races. They're diplomats and minstrels and traders and explorers. And as a group, with this general way of living their lives, they build up the +2 con and +2 cha in a sensible way.

D&D4E isn't the only RPG to give half-elves this kind of treatment. Not to cause any controversy by mentioning online games, but in Everquest 2 the half-elves adopted a sense of their own racial kinship and started referring to themselves as the Ayr'Dal (so as to distinguish themselves as a race apart from their ancestors).

ImperiousLeader
2008-06-26, 10:15 AM
As a person who tries to put roleplaying above all else; I tend to try and envision myself in my character's shoes. This is slightly hard when said character does not resemble a human in any way.

To be honest, I find that a failure of your imagination. I love getting into the character of more alien PCs, because then I'm not concerned that my human wizard is just me casting spells. A more non-human biology makes for a more distinct character, for me. It's a pity my 3.5 DMs were all so anti-Psionics (that and the LA was stupid), because I really wanted to play a Dromite, a psionic insectoid race.

Anyway, Dragonborn. Using the core fluff, I tend to think of them as having a little bit of wanderlust. Aside from the possessions they can carry, Dragonborn have little desire for material goods. Dragonborn art, therefore, must be portable, either jewelery, a part of their equipment and weapons, or vocal. Dragonborn will make great bards, once the class is available, as they love stories, poems and songs. This, to me, is where the Dragonborn's honour comes from. Dragonborn aren't big on monuments or statues, but a story or poem in their name? That's something worthwhile.

As to their biology, their quick maturation makes Dragonborn interactions with non-Dragonborn children interesting. Either they tend to find children vexingly slow and underdeveloped, or they treat them as small adults and don't talk down to them. Also, their size and stature mean that Dragonborn draw attention, so they aren't big on stealth. A Dragonborn rogue will probably favour misdirection over sneaking.


D&D4E isn't the only RPG to give half-elves this kind of treatment. Not to cause any controversy by mentioning online games, but in Everquest 2 the half-elves adopted a sense of their own racial kinship and started referring to themselves as the Ayr'Dal (so as to distinguish themselves as a race apart from their ancestors).

Also, Half-elves in Eberron are numerous enough that they are a truebreeding race and have two dragonmark families (two of the cooler ones too).

Paragon Badger
2008-06-26, 10:35 AM
As for Tieflings... I like the look. I've always likes Tieflings. What I DISLIKE... is the book literally saying that crap about them having names like "Tragedy" or "Agony" or "Subconscious Bemusement" or whatever. That was clearly pandering to the emo crowd and the people who think wangst alone makes you a roleplayer. My reason for liking Tieflings is simple. Tails are cool. Horns are cool. Horns AND tails... are awesome. I like the demonic look. If they had bat wings, I would squee with glee and dance all over them. But I would not name them "Wangstasia" or whatever self-pitying crap they came up with... And I'm a morbid goth!!!

Try the MM's Cambions. :smallwink: No player race conversion, though. :smallfrown: (though they wouldn't fit well in with most parties except maybe an evil one..)

And I think that list of names is what pushed me from mildedly annoyed to downright nauseated. If I just try to forget it existed...? :smallsmile:


If the only kind of tiefling you can come up with is "Behold my dark, tragic wangst" then you can not really call yourself a roleplayer. A character can be dark without being annoying... and can be troubled without being a schmuck. A character can also be bright and cheery... Like Kyra, a tiefling rogue... who swashbuckles her way around, dancing, singing, stealing, conning people and having fun. She treats life as a game, is charmingly upbeat and roguish... and just happens to be a tiefling. She's never wangsted in her life... though she'd fake it in a minute to get some poor SOB to buy her a warm meal. She's also, a tiefling. Why? Because I thought that a 16 year old girl with red skin, horns and a tail that waved around when she was excited was adorable.

I take a rather anthropological take on character creation. Things like cultural history and ethnic background matter to me because they commonly make up people's beliefs in the real world (even if they rebel against it.) and that makes for a deep character. I'm not sure how to play a character who carries so much cultural baggage as the tiefling without filling in some cliche boots once or twice, even if playing a subversion of the typical tiefling.

For this reason, I have trouble playing half-elves (or half anythings) because with all my characters- I immediatly ask myself what were his/her parents (or upbrining, if not applicable) like- and how did this influence their life?

I do have some experience playing dark & troubled without making an annoying schmuck (at least, I think, haven't heard any groans around the table yet. :smalltongue:) but the tiefling concept and description somehow feels...restricting.

That being said, I've sworn to play a tiefling, to see if I'm just making a big deal out of nothing. :smalltongue:


Hey PB,
I'm not sure anyone is going to be able to convince you to like something that you don't.
I quite like the fact that Dragonborn are less human looking than the other races, not just humans with pointy ears, or beards or shorter etc, but each to their own.

I do know a number of people who enjoy playing creatures who don't look human, so I suppose it's a matter of taste. The Dragonborn are growing on me, though.



Though disliking Tieflings for being angsty then using Shadar-Kai instead of Eldarin does seem a bit odd... they are the goth wannabees of the MM,
I must confess to not appreciating the elven swing of the PHB but there has always been a lot of love for the pointy eared prancers out there.

I don't think the Shadar-Kai seem too angsty. They look to be very enlightened and at peace with themselves- afterall, it takes quite a degree of wisdom to feel that death is a natural part of life and that they should not mourn the dead, but celebrate their life- so to speak. That's the vibe I got from them, since they worship the Raven Queen. I can easily imagine playing a Shadar-Kai undead hunter, or a travelling priest of the Raven Queen who helps ease the dead (and their survivors) into their new roles. I think Drow are way more goth. All that black and white, plus spiders! :smallwink:


Did you only bold the "angsty" names to make your point about tieflings?

Cause, you know, the name "Hope" doesnt sound very tragic to me... in fact, its one of the more popular names in American culture at the moment. Gladness, Ideal, Quest, Music... all weird names, but not nearly as melodramatic as you make it out to be.

I did see them, but felt it was a bit of a lampshade hanging or at best, a diversion- since the rest of the Tiefling's fluff description painfully avoids 'Hope, Gladness, Ideal..ect.' ;-)


Thank you. This is what is bothering me about the OP and this irrational hatred toward Dragonborn, Tiefling, etc, etc, etc.

EVERYTHING IS MUTABLE. The DMG encourages DM's to change things, to shift fluff around, to make it more fun.

Not all of us have the luxury of being DMs while we play campaign. The DMG encourages DM's to change things, but the PHB establishes guidelines for how the races are canonically.

Canon is difficult to change. And the clause that you change it doesn't work as well as one would hope, since many people are hesitant to make too many changes. The PHB establishes a standard for each race, and I have issue on how that standard is presented.

Also, it's not irrational, I felt that I gave perfectly logical reasons for my opinions. :smallwink:


As the offspring of two races, half-elves are adaptable and comfortable in disctinctly different cultures and peoples. This ability to adjust their demeanor to best suit the audience they're dealing with spills over into all their interactions. They're better able to appeal to people (+2 diplomacy), their experience with multiple races leaves them better able to read people (+2 insight), and leaves them better able to make themselves fit in among the diverse people's the world has to offer (+2 Cha).

To use a real life example; In the past, many interracial children were not accepted by either group. Thankfully, I've noticed this is somewhat becoming less true.

But you have a valid point, but..


They are also wanderers by nature. Constitution is not soley tied to burly dwarves. It's also the statistic of hearty adventurers and a measure of endurance. Just as marathon runners can be lean and hearty, so too can half-elves. The days and months they spend wandering from place to place leave them with a bit more hardiness than those who tend to stay tied so closely to their home of origin (+2 Con).

But are they are heartier than Dragonborn or Tieflings, who have such similiar 'tough' backstories? Apparantly. I just think they should have gone with the human's +2 anything and called it a day.


I've only touched on half-elves, because I could write a whole novel disagreeing with you. At the end of the day, it just seems very much to me like you're intentionally trying to dislike the character concepts because they're not what you're used to in 3E. How very dwarven of you :)

As I said; I'm trying to find a reason. :smallwink:


Another approach, the one taken in 4E and one I like much better, is to treat half-elves as a unique race within the game-world, from the viewpoint of the ease with which they move through cultures.

But to act as a junior anthropologist again, half-elves woulden't be, by their half-breed nature, a unique race. At least not unless they formed a unified pride of their heritage and formed their own unique culture...

"Half-elves have no culture of their own and are not a numerous people"

...Damn.


In high fantasy, racial groups tend to be fairly exclusive. Eladrin live with other Eladrin in their high spired cities. Dwarves live with other dwarves in their mountain halls. Etc Etc.

Because they are racist? (Mildly, though) Or at least have an aversion to others.


Half-elves, on the other hand, because of their dual heritage, really have it in their nature to bridge cultures and build relationships among multiple faiths. There is no half-elf empire because the half-elves are wandering the roads between the empires of the other races. They're diplomats and minstrels and traders and explorers. And as a group, with this general way of living their lives, they build up the +2 con and +2 cha in a sensible way.

...And some half-breed is going to remedy such racism? If there's one thing that an ethnocentric society does not like; it's having their genepool corrupted by 'lesser' races. But that's only if you put the racist spin on the setting, which is the vibe I sometimes get.. (Historically, cultural isolationism almost always meant that the said nation was hateful towards outsiders)


D&D4E isn't the only RPG to give half-elves this kind of treatment. Not to cause any controversy by mentioning online games, but in Everquest 2 the half-elves adopted a sense of their own racial kinship and started referring to themselves as the Ayr'Dal (so as to distinguish themselves as a race apart from their ancestors).

Yes, this is what I mean! An ethnic group must develop its own unique sense of identidy before it can properly build a culture that isn't just a mish/mash of their neighbors or ancestors. D&D Half-elves don't have this. :smallfrown:

I've never asked for realism, just verisimilitude. Some of these things just don't sound internally consistant with what's presented in Core.

wodan46
2008-06-26, 10:38 AM
1. Fluff is changeable, as said before
2. We don't have all the official fluff yet anyway, that comes more so in the setting books.

Anyways

4e Eladrin are to 3.5e Eladrin as Tieflings are to Devils. Anotherwords, they are essentially elven Aasimar. In fact, 3.5e Eladrin are still present in 4e, and are much more powerful than PC race Eladrin are. They are also specifically associated with the Fey (IE high magic) realms.

4e Tieflings are cool. If you read the parts of the fluff that aren't Drizzt bait, you will notice that the regular names are Roman sounding, and that they had an empire which fell due both to outside forces and inside decadence. Treat the Tiefling empire as the Roman Empire, and you get a good deal more fluff to work with than Angsty Mc-Emopants. Instead of making them like current Goths, make them like the original people who invented Gothic architecture. Instead of being angsty outcasts with no real goal, make their goal to be in part a desire to rebuild in the form of a Holy Roman Empire (or maybe Unholy, depends if they are smart enough to acknowledge past mistakes).

4e Shadar Kai are far more gothy than Tieflings. They dress in exaggerated goth outfits, are morbidly preoccupied with death, and like to fight with spiked chains. Seriously. Granted, this isn't very surprising given that they live on a plane made out of shadowy necrotic death that is a pale shadow of the actual world.

4e Dragonborn are fun mechanically but I agree that they are stupid fluff wise. Make them the Gauls to the Tiefling's Romans, who are now more European in attitude.

Personally, I'd have liked Shadar Kai as a main race rather than Dragonborn, as that way there would be a race from the Shadowfell and a race from the Fey Realms.

Myatar_Panwar
2008-06-26, 10:58 AM
I think all you people whining about races supposedly made for whiny teenagers need to take a look at a mirror. You may see horns. :smalltongue:

[/joke]

Talya
2008-06-26, 10:59 AM
4e race mechanical design? Brilliant. Love it. Love everything about it.

4e race selection and fluff? What were these asshats smoking?

Gypsy0001
2008-06-26, 11:16 AM
4e Eladrin are to 3.5e Eladrin as Tieflings are to Devils. Anotherwords, they are essentially elven Aasimar. In fact, 3.5e Eladrin are still present in 4e, and are much more powerful than PC race Eladrin are. They are also specifically associated with the Fey (IE high magic) realms.

I'm pretty sure 4E Eladrin are 3.5E Gray Elves. They have very similar fluff and stats.

4E Elves are 3.5E High elves.

With the changes to angels (as messengers of any gods, good or evil), I'm not sure what's going to happen to Aasimar in 4E. We'll have to see if they show up again.

Alchemistmerlin
2008-06-26, 11:18 AM
I think all you people whining about races supposedly made for whiny teenagers need to take a look at a mirror. You may see horns. :smalltongue:

[/joke]

I gnashed my teeth befor eseeing your /joke.

Bravo :smallamused:

In all honesty my major complaint about the Tieflings (other than pulling in the animu crowd) is that angsty, grim, drama filled, poorly written fluff tends to pull in angsty, drama filled, poorly social kids to the scene. Before you know it, DRAMA DRAMA ANGST ANGST in game turns into DRAMA DRAMA ANGST ANGST in real life and tada; game over.

Damurxac
2008-06-26, 11:31 AM
My thoughts on the dragonborn:

My first reaction was "Oviparous race where the females have breasts? What kind of drugs was WOTC taking?", followed shortly by "Darn it, I want tails on my dragons!"

So my conclusion: Dragonborn aren't humanoid dragons. Not at all. They are, clearly, humans, modified by some of the same sorts of magic involved in such creatures as manticores and chimeras.
And suddenly it all makes sense! That ancient "dragonborn" empire was a human empire, and a fairly nasty one at that (you have to be pretty nasty to start mass experiments on your own subjects); the actual dragonborn were their elite soldiers. And because they won the war against the tieflings (pyrrhic victory, but still won), they got to write the history, and painted themselves as noble and the tieflings as depraved and evil.

That honor and pride that's built into dragonborn society? That's the remnants of their original military indoctrination and training, passed faithfully down from one generation to the next.

Kaja Rainbow
2008-06-26, 11:32 AM
Oh, I agree that the stuff about tieflings developing a empire, and striking a bargain to gain the power for that, was pretty cool. In general? The background fluff? Good, actually. It's the "and this is how they act" stuff that tends to be pretty poor.

And I know how hard it can be to change fluff when you aren't the DM--my goblin rogue's definitely getting hit with those preconceptions.

About Aasimar: yeah, I had forgotten about the change to angels. Not sure to do then. I'd like to see something with similar fluff, but perhaps with a somewhat different source/background. Perhaps some people might've asked their gods to grant them power, and some granted by empowering their bloodlines, much like what happened with tieflings. So, there'd be some variety resulting from that, depending on what kind of god did the empowering.

...Wait, dragonborn women have breasts? This is going to turn into the new dwarf women with/without beards argument, isn't it? (Myself, I would play one without breasts...)

THAC0
2008-06-26, 11:44 AM
Tieflings and dragonborn: I don't like them, but points to Wizards for trying something new. Some new things are more a miss than a hit, but it's better than everything being stale.

Tieflings would be wayyyy cooler without the "ZOMG I HAVE HORNS" thing.

Eladrin and Elves: I like this split. It never quite made sense to me how elves in previous editions were all woodsy AND all super smart magicky and made of awesome. I like having a race differentiation rather than a sub-race differentiation.

Gnomes are awesome, though I would love to see some Gnome feats in the future.

Gypsy0001
2008-06-26, 12:01 PM
Gnomes are awesome

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UqFPujRZWo

"I called my mom, and I was like "Guess what?" and she was like "What?" and I was like "I'm a monster! RAR!!!"

AKA_Bait
2008-06-26, 12:04 PM
I think they should have just left the human description at "nasty, brutish and short." Or maybe that should be dwarves...

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-26, 12:08 PM
So, like many, I dislike Dragonborn and Tieflings. However, I found them quite agreeable with a little fluff shift.

Dragonborn are the "evolutionary" offshoot of Dragons, and Dragons think of them as humans think of apes. Consequently, I ruled that the semi-savage Dragonborne were "civilized" by a collection of Dragons that agreed to cooperate to this end, resulting in a slave civilization which, after the Council of Dragons was slain, fell to pieces.

Loyal and obedient? Check! Used to being second-class citizens? Check! Now if you want to be one, you're going to be treated as a simple workhorse by human society, 'cause that's what the rest of your race's refugees are. You can go with that as you will, but an extra dose of "stranger in a strange land" :smallbiggrin:

Tieflings are the nobility of an ancient empire, but not one that collapsed due to its own awesomeness, but because of a steady degradation until they were knocked over by barbarians (see Roman Empire). Now they too are refugees in the human kingdom where they are distrusted (y'know, looking like demons will do that) but because of their natural intelligence and charisma, they are way too useful to completely marginalize. So, no more lurking around being angsty about your past glory; you're either trying to make your way in society or you'll be spit upon by your Tiefling peers. Plus, more racism.

The problem with the two races is that WotC doesn't deal with racism in their settings. That makes it seem silly for Tieflings to be all emo and for Dragonborn to be Noble Savages. Add in some good reasons for them to act that way, and you'll feel much better.

I agree, though, neither should have been a core race.

Now, Elves/Eladrin/Half-Elves
The Half-Elves are easy to understand. WotC is rebooting the Aragorn-style elfblooded - they are tougher and more influential than normal humans. I approve, though the Dilettante power seems a little weird... and hard to use with the complete segregation of ability scores and powers. I guess this allows for cheap multiclassing?

I approve of the Eladrin/Elf split. The sub-race thing always was hard to use, and almost always seemed to cause more harm than good. Here, WotC has taken this issue head on and said "Eladrin stick around in Awesomeland the Feywild while the Elves have decided to hang out on the Prime Material Plane." The teleport power actually adds some really fun "fluff" (the Eladrin Rake teleports over to the baroness and offers to buy her a drink :smalltongue:) and makes the Eladrin seem much, much different than regular elves.

The group booster powers are kind of weak, but the argument is that people are all a bit more alert when an elf is pointing out little details, and that with a half-elf smoothing things over, negotiations go better. Yeah, the arguments are weak, but the powers are not that annoying.

I gotta say, I really like how all the races were implemented. I may disapprove of Dragonborn and Tieflings, but that doesn't mean I can't tweak them to suit my needs.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-26, 12:29 PM
I like the Dragonborn and Teiflings. I see them as harking back to the pulp fantasy roots of the game: they come from the same place as the Beholder, Rust Monster and Bulette, a world of joyous fantasy melange where a medieval knight can fight cavemen in the ruins of an alien city.

The new races make the world feel less like Middle Earth and more like the Dying Earth, which is all to the good IMO.

batsofchaos
2008-06-26, 12:36 PM
I've not been a big fan of the new-to-core races of 4ed, either. Mostly because I'm converting a pre-built world to 4ed and it's been a stretch to believably insert them.

Eladrin are easy enough; they're high elves and 'elves' are wood-elves. Change the fluff so they're the same 'race' and they're ready to insert.

Dragonborn and Tieflings are a bit more difficult a proposition, though. I have a fortuitous need of a monstrous, war-like people that mirror the Visigoths from historic Europe. Dragonborn fit the bill pretty well, and have a good flavor for what I'm going for. Saves me the trouble of developing a different race for the part (that portion of the campaign world was as yet undeveloped beyond the political ramifications; the previous 3.5 campaign had a seperate focus than the current cold-war on the main continent). Tieflings, however... Well, Tieflings left a bad taste in my mouth from the get go (honestly, so did Dragonborn but I warmed up to them once I had a logical insert) and they really don't fit the flavor of my campaign...So, Tieflings get the axe.

I've never been satisfied with the fluff for monstrous humanoids, regardless of edition, so altering that to coincide with my campaign world is no additional work; fluff-conversions are the easiest of all.

Kletian999
2008-06-26, 12:42 PM
Eladrin are basically the (Shakesperean) Fairy/Pixie race. They were the result of humanoid life evolving in the high magic environment of the Feywild, thus their powers like teleportation. Every RPG needs a "caster centric race" though admittedly their solider race feat is amazing and I've created a melee character to take full advantage of that teleport. They embrace the aloof and socially awkward archetypes as well as those that can see the "big picture" of events through their huge lifespans.

This makes them distinct from normal elves which get to fill the close to trees ranger/druid race. The magnitude here is on par with Native Aborigines to Western Europeans (Eladrin don't care about the environment as much since they live elsewhere), so I don't agree with the criticism that we have "too many elves".

Dragonborn- yes they promoted them simply, but that's just to grab the people playing Half Dragons anyway. And who could blame them really? That social challenge with annoying bueracrat is about to fail, sure you could punch em to start off the combat on surprise (drawing weapons is too slow)- but wouldn't you prefer breathing ACID into his FACE?

SamTheCleric
2008-06-26, 12:45 PM
but wouldn't you prefer breathing ACID into his FACE?

The goggles! They do nothing!

Aahz
2008-06-26, 01:26 PM
I agree with the badger: I want simple races (and classes) in the core rulebooks. Human, elf, half-elf, halfling, dwarf. That's it. The rest of the playable races should be in the MM to emphasize that they're optional, and locale-based.

Same, IMO, for classes. I'd like to see just Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, and Rogue as primary classes with most of the rest as subtypes (Paladin = Cleric, Warlock = Wizard, Ranger = Rogue).

Zyks
2008-06-26, 01:39 PM
Personally I like Tiefling, but please dont jump over each other to flame me over it.

I like their whole concept, but I dont like all the emo/goth crap that looks to come as standard with them. I never play races using the standard back-fluff stuff, so I just cut all that out, and make my own stuff up as I go along. Hell my first dnd 3.5e character was an evil clanless, crazy, seafaring dwarf barbarian partying with a lawful good cleric who never used detect evil...

Ceiling009
2008-06-26, 01:49 PM
I treat it like star wars. They're there, and they've been there. So Tieflings, Dragonborn, Eladrin, whatever really; it's just been there. maybe they're less common, but they're still part of the world. And in all seriousness, I normally throw out background fluff a lot, unless a player wants to make it a point. And it's not like you can't change they way they act... even if it's hard, you can.

Vortling
2008-06-26, 04:34 PM
To step away from the Dragonborn and Tiefling debate for the moment, I'd like to take a look at the mechanical side of Humans. Specifically I think they're subpar mechanically. Let's look at what they get.

+2 to stat of choice. At first glance this looks good. Now take a step back and realize that there's no stat that isn't covered by another PHB race. Some of the stats are covered many times over. The 7 other races cover most of the stat combinations you'd want for the classes in the PHB. For example, the cha bonus from a Dragonborn goes to waste on a Fighter, but Humans aren't doing any better stat-wise. The situation becomes even worse if you include the MM races.

Bonus At-Will. Again, looks good at first glance. Now take a step back and realize that to make this useful for Clerics and Paladins you're going to have to focus on two different class paths with different stat focuses. For Rogue, Ranger, Warlord, and Warlocks it's not quite so bad but you still pushing your MAD up. Combined with the single stat bump humans have brings you to the decision of spreading yourself thin or simply having an at-will that isn't likely to hit. It's alright for Fighters and Wizards. In addition you can only use one at-will at a time. This is a downside when you realize that most of the racial encounter powers activate for free.

Bonus Feat. Everyone has more feats and they're mostly small static bonuses that don't have a lot of impact, especially at heroic when you get the bonus feat. I know you can retrain, but sadly paragon feats aren't much better.

Bonus Trained Skill. Completely situational. If your DM doesn't favor using skills this turns into nothing more than a minor flavor addition to your character. Also reread what I said about bonus feats with the added caveat that it's selected from a small subset of heroic feats and can't be retrained.

To sum up: The "where ever you want" stat bonus isn't a good bonus and will become increasingly weak as new books with new player races fill in the remaining +2 this, +2 that slots.
The extra at-will just isn't as useful as the encounter powers other races have.
The two bonus feats simply don't measure up to the extra goodies given to other races.
In short, humans are subpar. Thoughts?

Kaja Rainbow
2008-06-26, 05:29 PM
Regarding humans and rogues: as a rogue, I actually would love the extra at-will. It helps to have increased tactical options, and there're only two at-wills that require either Cha or Str--neither of those relying on either to hit (the majority of rogues' powers use Dex with Cha/Str providing secondary benefits). There's one that targets a lower defense (Ref rather than AC), one that gets an extra boost from your chosen secondary stat, and one that helps you maneuver. So, if you get all three, you've got a pretty good variety of useful at-wills. And I suspect at least one of the other classes you called problematic actually have a situation like that.

Can I do without the extra at-will? Sure. But it's nice.

As for the usefulness of the extra skill... skills definitely come up in the kinds of game I prefer to play.

THAC0
2008-06-26, 05:32 PM
To step away from the Dragonborn and Tiefling debate for the moment, I'd like to take a look at the mechanical side of Humans. Specifically I think they're subpar mechanically. Let's look at what they get.

+2 to stat of choice. At first glance this looks good. Now take a step back and realize that there's no stat that isn't covered by another PHB race. Some of the stats are covered many times over. The 7 other races cover most of the stat combinations you'd want for the classes in the PHB. For example, the cha bonus from a Dragonborn goes to waste on a Fighter, but Humans aren't doing any better stat-wise. The situation becomes even worse if you include the MM races.

Bonus At-Will. Again, looks good at first glance. Now take a step back and realize that to make this useful for Clerics and Paladins you're going to have to focus on two different class paths with different stat focuses. For Rogue, Ranger, Warlord, and Warlocks it's not quite so bad but you still pushing your MAD up. Combined with the single stat bump humans have brings you to the decision of spreading yourself thin or simply having an at-will that isn't likely to hit. It's alright for Fighters and Wizards. In addition you can only use one at-will at a time. This is a downside when you realize that most of the racial encounter powers activate for free.

Bonus Feat. Everyone has more feats and they're mostly small static bonuses that don't have a lot of impact, especially at heroic when you get the bonus feat. I know you can retrain, but sadly paragon feats aren't much better.

Bonus Trained Skill. Completely situational. If your DM doesn't favor using skills this turns into nothing more than a minor flavor addition to your character. Also reread what I said about bonus feats with the added caveat that it's selected from a small subset of heroic feats and can't be retrained.

To sum up: The "where ever you want" stat bonus isn't a good bonus and will become increasingly weak as new books with new player races fill in the remaining +2 this, +2 that slots.
The extra at-will just isn't as useful as the encounter powers other races have.
The two bonus feats simply don't measure up to the extra goodies given to other races.
In short, humans are subpar. Thoughts?

I thought this at first. Then I realized just how awesome +1 to defenses is. And the human feats are also totally cool.

That said, I don't think I'd call humans underpowered, but just like the other races, there will be classes they tend to work better for (wizard, fighter) and classes they do not work as well for (cleric, paladin). It's a bit of a step away from previous humanocentricism (oo look I made a new word!), and slightly annoying to me as someone who likes to play human clerics and paladins, but no more so than if I was someone who liked playing dragonborn rangers or something.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-26, 05:55 PM
In short, humans are subpar. Thoughts?

I'll take a stab at this one.

The flexibility of humans is actually pretty huge. An extra trained skill, a free feat, and an extra at-will? That lets you be pretty much whatever you like - throw in a multiclass and a Divine feat at level one, why not? That extra skill training can be huge too - a free +5? Nice!

All the other races get a piece of this sort of choice, but not the whole deal. They can make better specialists, but for the generalist (or, at least the less hidebound) character, Human is the way to go. And +1 to all defenses? Not bad at all!

Now, I know you downplayed things like Skills and Feats and At-Wills, but honestly, they're very nice. A DM who doesn't use Skills in his campaign probably shouldn't be playing 4e - things like Perception, Insight, and the Knowledge skills are designed to be central to how the character perceives the world around him in 4e. If you don't use 'em, it's like deciding not to use HP.

While everyone gets "a lot of feats" having 2 off the bat can give a nice power boost to the human, and start them along longer feat chains (like the armor chain!) as well as allowing them to take the "why not" feats. The same goes with At-Wills, since most classes have at least a conditionally-useful power for any build.

The nice thing is that no race is clearly superior, or inferior (half-orcs and half-elves in 3e? :smallyuk:) and everyone has some choices to boot.

TheEmerged
2008-06-26, 07:11 PM
4e race mechanical design? Brilliant. Love it. Love everything about it.

4e race selection and fluff? What were these asshats smoking?

Pretty much where I stand. In particular, I like that they *mostly* avoided making a 'perfect' race/class combination. There are obvious exceptions (halfling/rogue, dragonborn/warlord being two I've stumbled on, there are probably others).

I also think they did a better job with Half Elves. They need to errata the half elf racial feat though... Their bonus at-will power is actually a neat variant on the human bonus at-will in my opinion -- and there's enough crossover between the classes that you can generally find something you'll want.

Humans are closer to the other races than in 3rd, in my opinion.

As for kobolds & goblins? Their racial powers are a lot better in practice than it might look in theory.

Falconer Lombar
2008-06-26, 07:17 PM
Looking over the 4e PHB I bought earlier today, I thought the dragonborn would be cooler if I played them like me and some friends already did on another forum. Less of the proud stuff, and more of wandering warriors who work alongside dwarves as craftsmen in their volcanic homes where they share the knowledge of magma forges. So a more dragon-like version of dwarves that have higher defence against fire-based attacks but, can only wear specially made armor from dwarven armorsmiths trained by other dragonborn or by master armorsmiths of the dragonborn. The downside to them is that they are more prone to magic and can't master magic themselves.

Eladrin are ok... just not very well used in the campaign I'm working on. I just am not huge on omega-magic. My fluff is based on that they were once a mighty people, but in their lust for magic they stopped communicating with other races and became inwardly focused until it was every one for themselves. They soon fought for the knowledge the other possessed and destroyed their cities. Few were left and without their massive arcane culture, they degraded and became people of the forest (Normal Elves). Few true Eladrin were left and became the kings and queens of elven territories. The children of true Eladrin are often cast off at a young age to the frontier of elven lands to make a name and territory for themselves. From this, they don't get great magical powers, they have to learn that. They do get +1 to constitution and +1 to charisma instead. After hitting paragon, they reach the bonuses that normal Eladrin in exchange for their earlier ones but, come with downsides like being less naturally atuned and a slight lack in strength. They can also continue with their original stats, and not bother with the normal set, with +1 to charisma or dexterity.

Finally, Tieflings. I portray them as a fallen people who warred for many years and made their pacts as a last ditch effort to survive. Their people survived, but the curse limits them from multiplying and rebuilding their civilization. They seek out a cure as adventurers, either through natural means or by a blessing from the gods. (Though few take the last option.)


These are my thoughts and how I play, 4e is also my first delve into dnd but I've played dnd-like games that friends and I have created.

Kaja Rainbow
2008-06-26, 07:56 PM
Taking a closer look at Warlocks, you can actually get by fine with doing one focused on Con and Cha, with Int as a tertiary focus since it just determines secondary effects in a few powers if nice ones. In fact, Star Pact powers use both Con and Cha to hit. Anyway, if you're a Con-based Warlock, you're good for three at-will power choices, and if you're focused on both Con and Cha, you can use what you like. This means that humans are fine if you're willing to take a -1 on one of your attack rolls and half-elves actually make particularly good warlocks with some builds.

A lot of warlords would do fine with the extra at-will power, too.

In short, it's mainly clerics and paladins that have trouble finding anything useful to do with an extra at-will.

That said, the extra at-will isn't a killing advantage, just an useful one. It depends on your character whether you'll pick it useful or not, but MAD just isn't as much of a concern for most classes as Vortling thought. Some classes would have a more restricted selection for what three at-wills to pick, though.

I really don't think humans're underpowered, they just have their own particular niches.

And, you can, really, play any class you'd like with any race combination and only get an overall -1 penalty at most. I like that. It's better than 3E hitting you with a -2 penalty, and more lethally, a drop in the attribute used to determine your castable spells (in 4E that isn't a factor).

BardicDuelist
2008-06-26, 08:35 PM
Eh, in my world, Eldarin are called elves and the mechanical differences are just represented by different cultural up bringings. There, problem solved. Now you can be wizardy and rangery and play all of your elven steryotypes. Yay? Eh, my group bought it.

Tieflings? Well, for my world, I insisted that they be rare (which is fine with my players) and are typically a semi-imperial and secretive race. It works, but I also agree that they shouldn't have been in the PHB. Look on the bright side, with all PHBs being Core now, it will dillute the races choice and de-emphasize tieflings with time.

Dragonborn? Out of all of the races, this was the one that I wanted to hate the most. It was annother monster race, it replaced half-orc, and it was going to be a dumb, brutal fighter. Then I actually read it. I LIKE the whole "Mandalorian" feel. I like that they are inhuman but not hated and feared. Finally, if there's any cultural steryotype that I can agree with it, it's the honorable warrior one. It has historical precidence and is plausable. Thus, I like them. Sure, they can feel like dwarves, but I play up the differences like a Greco-Roman or even Japonese feel for Dragonborn and a "northern" Russian-Norse feel for Dwarves. Note the different cultures influence (even withing a race). This allows for many different characters.

JaxGaret
2008-06-27, 12:55 AM
First of all, mutable flavor. That should be enough to end this thread.

Second of all; what's your problem with Dragonborn and Tieflings, specifically? Half-Orcs and Half-Elves in 3e were likely to be less common than 4e Dragonborn and Tieflings, so that can't be your reason for disliking them, comparatively. Unless you disliked H-Os and H-Es in 3e; to which I'll just say, this isn't a 4e issue you're having.

Third of all, I really like the fact that the races in 4e are not as fluff-based as previously (much like the entirety of 4e); it allows for much more personal interpretation of characters.

Paragon Badger
2008-06-27, 01:11 AM
First of all, mutable flavor. That should be enough to end this thread.

Second of all; what's your problem with Dragonborn and Tieflings, specifically? Half-Orcs and Half-Elves in 3e were likely to be less common than 4e Dragonborn and Tieflings, so that can't be your reason for disliking them, comparatively. Unless you disliked H-Os and H-Es in 3e; to which I'll just say, this isn't a 4e issue you're having.

Third of all, I really like the fact that the races in 4e are not as fluff-based as previously (much like the entirety of 4e); it allows for much more personal interpretation of characters.

Fluff is mutable...if you are the DM.

Players have much less control, however..

And I didn't like the Half-Orcs or Half-Elves either, but 4e should be a progression of quality. That's kind of expected from game sequels. Or it should be.

Xyk
2008-06-27, 01:27 AM
I actually really like dragonborns. I picture a Dragonborn mercenary leaning against a wall. They can be fierce, and honorable. That's how I would roleplay one.

Tieflings suck.

Eladrins are super-cool, They are the highly educated rich kids with magic fairy powers. My first character will either be an eladrin or a half-elf.

Half-elves seem better than they were in 3e. They have a con bonus because it says they are good at surviving.

JaxGaret
2008-06-27, 01:31 AM
Fluff is mutable...if you are the DM.

Players have much less control, however..

Agreed, the DM does have more control than the players. I come to this discussion as a very free-spirited DM, though.


And I didn't like the Half-Orcs or Half-Elves either, but 4e should be a progression of quality. That's kind of expected from game sequels. Or it should be.

You didn't like the half races in 3e, and you don't like the half races in 4e. That's completely understandable, but is a personal viewpoint, rather than a universal critique.

I may point out though that neither 4e Dragonborn nor Tieflings are half-races; Dragonborn are a race unto themselves, being bred ages ago to be servants to the dragons. Tieflings are simply Humans whose ancestors signed pacts with unsavory beings, but they are still Humans, or an offshoot of Humans.

Paragon Badger
2008-06-27, 01:49 AM
You didn't like the half races in 3e, and you don't like the half races in 4e. That's completely understandable, but is a personal viewpoint, rather than a universal critique.

At what point do they differ? :smalltongue: I've had plenty of art critiques in school with one person liking the piece for something and another person disliking it for that same reason.

I thought I said somewhere that these were all my opinions in the first post. :smalleek:

That being said, I might be too harsh for demanding a progression of quality in something I dislike for its very nature. :smalltongue:

JaxGaret
2008-06-27, 02:02 AM
At what point do they differ? :smalltongue:

Flavor-wise, they differ a great deal.


I've had plenty of art critiques in school with one person liking the piece for something and another person disliking it for that same reason.

I can't speak for your artistic tastes; overall, I prefer 4e art to 3e art, but mostly for production value.


I thought I said somewhere that these were all my opinions in the first post. :smalleek:

Okay.


That being said, I might be too harsh for demanding a progression of quality in something I dislike for its very nature. :smalltongue:

I like the changes in races from 3e to 4e, very much. Therefore, I think there has been a progression of quality. Your dislike of 4e is not an intrinsic critique.

Helgraf
2008-06-27, 02:25 AM
Pretty much where I stand. In particular, I like that they *mostly* avoided making a 'perfect' race/class combination. There are obvious exceptions (halfling/rogue, dragonborn/warlord being two I've stumbled on, there are probably others).

I also think they did a better job with Half Elves. They need to errata the half elf racial feat though... Their bonus at-will power is actually a neat variant on the human bonus at-will in my opinion -- and there's enough crossover between the classes that you can generally find something you'll want.

Humans are closer to the other races than in 3rd, in my opinion.

As for kobolds & goblins? Their racial powers are a lot better in practice than it might look in theory.

Eladrin/Wizard (http://ironhand.livejournal.com/80553.html) is, admittely, practically a "gimme" combo.

Dragonborn make damn fine Paladins (http://ironhand.livejournal.com/80862.html), too. Humans make excellent rogues. (http://ironhand.livejournal.com/80938.html) As for half-elves; I've made a prototype Warlord, MC Warlock (http://ironhand.livejournal.com/80281.html), and took thunderwave as his dilettante power. Stat overlap was good; and some interesting combinations as I advanced the character through level 12 (theory build - haven't had the chance to do 'live ammo testing' yet).

Also ... dwarves can make primo rangers even if their stat boosts are only partly helpful. Dwarven Weapon Training, a warhammer in each hand ... fun times. Add Student of the Sword and the multiclass feats and you can work in some interesting power-swaps. See example here... (http://ironhand.livejournal.com/80040.html)
((Note this build is not equipped for higher level play -didn't feel like taking the time to figure out what equipment beyond the absolute basics it would have; but everything else is statted out.))

Morty
2008-06-27, 05:31 AM
First of all, mutable flavor. That should be enough to end this thread.


Is fluff mutable? It is. Does it change the fact that we don't like the fluff given us in core books. It doesn't. Are Dragonborn stupid beyond redemption and worthy only of being removed? They are. Would orcs or hobgoblins fill the niche dragonborn fill while being less controversial? They would.
In other news, I dream of the day when people stop using "fluff is mutable" argument and expect it to have any weight. It's like convincing someone that the movie is good because you can just close your eyes at the bad scenes.

Kurald Galain
2008-06-27, 05:36 AM
First of all, mutable flavor. That should be enough to end this thread.

Give me an O! Give me a BE! Give me a Roni!

SmartAlec
2008-06-27, 06:15 AM
Give me an O! Give me a BE! Give me a Roni!

How's that? That fallacy applies to game rules; inconsistencies, loopholes and mechanics. Not setting or background. Of course setting's up to us!


It's like convincing someone that the movie is good because you can just close your eyes at the bad scenes.

'The romantic subplot might suck a bit and that guy's acting is atrocious but the leading actor more than makes up for it and the final action scene is very cool, imaginatively cool.'

Morty
2008-06-27, 06:26 AM
'The romantic subplot might suck a bit and that guy's acting is atrocious but the leading actor more than makes up for it and the final action scene is very cool, imaginatively cool.'

Still, the very fact that leading actor and final action scene have to make up for something speaks badly for the film that could've been much better. In the same way, if I have to change the fluff so that it doesn't spoil the gameplay, it means that I don't like what I'm given in the core books.

SmartAlec
2008-06-27, 06:35 AM
Still, the very fact that leading actor and final action scene have to make up for something speaks badly for the film that could've been much better. In the same way, if I have to change the fluff so that it doesn't spoil the gameplay, it means that I don't like what I'm given in the core books.

Given that the core books give you a whole chapter on changing the fluff and different ideas on how to do so, I would have at least thought you would have gotten the impression that the game is with you on this, not against you.

Anyhow, I just read this review that said that guy's acting brought an uncertainty to the role that helped the character, and another review that said the love story was the heart of the movie... what are you asking for, perfection for everyone?

DigoDragon
2008-06-27, 06:51 AM
First of all, mutable flavor. That should be enough to end this thread.

I agree. I've never used the fluff in D&D books. I create my own fluff based upon what my campaign world needs and what my players would like to play. We never use gnomes so I toss those out and there was this one time we had a player build a really nifty kobold paladin to join the group so...

Yeah. Change what you feel doesn't fit your style Make it your own. :smallsmile:

potatocubed
2008-06-27, 06:57 AM
I like the eladrin. They are what elves should be.
I think the new elves are fairly pointless as a result.

Yes, I know about the races/subraces thing - not a bad idea, all told - but DnD elves have never been particularly 'fey' and I think a better solution would have been to shuffle the elves further away from humanity and into the slot currently occupied by the eladrin, not create a new race to fill that slot and try to shoehorn the elves in with the halfelves as another midway point between fey and human.

I also think dragonborn with breasts is a silly idea, but I'm not against the concept of dragonborn in general. And I've always liked tieflings, emo or not.

Kurald Galain
2008-06-27, 07:00 AM
How's that? That fallacy applies to game rules; inconsistencies, loopholes and mechanics. Not setting or background. Of course setting's up to us!

It applies whenever somebody says that such-and-such part of the Books isn't broken because they can ignore it and use something they made up instead. And yes, that includes fluff. "The fluff isn't stupid because I can make up my own" is exactly as Oberoni as "this rule isn't stupid because I can houserule around it".

Morty
2008-06-27, 07:13 AM
Given that the core books give you a whole chapter on changing the fluff and different ideas on how to do so, I would have at least thought you would have gotten the impression that the game is with you on this, not against you.

These guidelines are, if I recall correctly, in Dungeon Master's Guide. As a player, I look on what's in PHB. And I don't like this.


Anyhow, I just read this review that said that guy's acting brought an uncertainty to the role that helped the character, and another review that said the love story was the heart of the movie... what are you asking for, perfection for everyone?

I'm not "asking" for anything, I'm voicing my opinion on 4ed races.

SmartAlec
2008-06-27, 07:31 AM
It applies whenever somebody says that such-and-such part of the Books isn't broken because they can ignore it and use something they made up instead. And yes, that includes fluff. "The fluff isn't stupid because I can make up my own" is exactly as Oberoni as "this rule isn't stupid because I can houserule around it".

From the Wizards community list of terminology:

"Oberoni Fallacy (noun): The fallacy that the existence of a rule stating that, ‘the rules can be changed,’ can be used to excuse design flaws in the actual rules."

From the Common Acronyms, Abbreviations and Terms thread here at gitp forums:

"Oberoni Fallacy: The statement that there are no problematic or broken rules, as any identified as such can simply be corrected by application of Rule 0. A fallacy as having another overarching rule allowing for corrective action to be taken does not mean that there were not problems in the first place. Formally identified as a logical fallacy by WotC forum member Oberoni."

And to quote Oberoni's original post:

"There is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X, because you can always Rule 0 the inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."

Bolding mine. Anyhow; there's no mention of background, setting, fluff, whatever in the Oberoni fallacy.


I'm not "asking" for anything, I'm voicing my opinion on 4ed races.

You were also talking about the 'fluff is mutable' argument, I believe.

Morty
2008-06-27, 07:41 AM
You were also talking about the 'fluff is mutable' argument, I believe.

And how does that change anything? The point remains that fluff is mutable, but if we have to change it so it doesn't spoil gameplay, it means it's, for some people, bad. Not to mention that 4ed fluff is by far less generic than it should be.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-27, 07:44 AM
And how does that change anything? The point remains that fluff is mutable, but if we have to change it so it doesn't spoil gameplay, it means it's, for some people, bad.


I just wanted to take a second to thank M0rt here. He qualified that it's bad for "some people." That doesnt mean we all need to argue with each other... because, contrary to popular belief, we do get to have our own opinions. :smallsmile:

As for the Monster Manual races: I really like what they did with the Warforged in Dragon Mag. My personal hope is to get the Gith next, but I know M0rt wants Goblins and a few people want shifters... We'll all just have to be patient.

I'm also hoping that every race (including those in the PHB) eventually get Racial paragon paths similiar to the Warforged Juggernaut.

Kurald Galain
2008-06-27, 07:55 AM
From the Wizards community list of terminology:
You are reading the text without comprehending what it is for.

SmartAlec
2008-06-27, 08:07 AM
The point remains that fluff is mutable, but if we have to change it so it doesn't spoil gameplay, it means it's, for some people, bad.

Well, hang on a moment.

You dreamed of the day when the 'fluff is mutable' was not considered a valid response to criticisms on fluff. That was definitely mentioned.

This implies that you don't want mutable fluff, because as long as it is accepted that fluff is changeable, people will consider fluff changes not just occasionally necessary, but a good thing. So either you want want perfect fluff out of the box, fluff that does not need to be changed for anyone, or at least not for you - or you want no fluff at all.

So I say again, what are you asking for here? I don't get it. Because the idea of mutable fluff is so central, so implicit to the whole roleplaying thing that we've got here, that I would have thought it was practically accepted as a whole by now. Changing it to suit gameplay is practically par for the course, no matter what game you play. And the fact that it is considered ok to change fluff amongst the wider gaming community is good, isn't it? You can't expect a company to produce a game world to suit all tastes, so why the implied scorn for people who say it can be changed?


You are reading the text without comprehending what it is for.

No, I'm not. I understand what it's for; it's to call attention to the use of Rule 0 as an excuse for bad game design choices. You are stretching the meaning to apply to something that it was not meant to apply to.

Morty
2008-06-27, 08:11 AM
Well, hang on a moment.

You dreamed of the day when the 'fluff is mutable' was not considered a valid response to criticisms on fluff. That was definitely mentioned.

This implies that you don't want mutable fluff, because as long as it is accepted that fluff is changeable, people will consider fluff changes not just occasionally necessary, but a good thing. So either you want want perfect fluff out of the box, fluff that does not need to be changed for anyone, or at least not for you - or you want no fluff at all.

So I say again, what are you asking for here? I don't get it. Because the idea of mutable fluff is so central, so implicit to the whole roleplaying thing that we've got here, that I would have thought it was practically accepted as a whole by now. Changing it to suit gameplay is practically par for the course, no matter what game you play. And the fact that it is considered ok to change fluff amongst the wider gaming community is good, isn't it?

You're missing the whole point. Yes, fluff is mutable. It can be changed. But so is everything else. And if something can be changed it doesn't mean I can't dislike it out-of-the-box.


My personal hope is to get the Gith next, but I know M0rt wants Goblins and a few people want shifters... We'll all just have to be patient.

I might want goblins to get racial progression, but I don't expect it.

SmartAlec
2008-06-27, 08:15 AM
You're missing the whole point. Yes, fluff is mutable. It can be changed. But so is everything else. And if something can be changed it doesn't mean I can't dislike it out-of-the-box.

Disliking the game system I can understand; even disliking the stuff out of the box I can grasp. What I don't understand is that you dislike the fluff, but you also appear to dislike the fact that people can change it.

Morty
2008-06-27, 08:21 AM
Disliking the game system I can understand; even disliking the stuff out of the box I can grasp. What I don't understand is that you dislike the fluff, but you also appear to dislike the fact that people can change it.

Once more, you're missing the point. I don't dislike that the flavor can be changed, I'm annoyed when people claim that you shouldn't dislike anything because it can be changed.

SmartAlec
2008-06-27, 08:34 AM
Once more, you're missing the point. I don't dislike that the flavor can be changed, I'm annoyed when people claim that you shouldn't dislike anything because it can be changed.

I don't think I am, for I understand that annoyance. But it's not what I'm trying to talk about. It's not that you shouldn't dislike it. Dislike is fine, it's that I don't think you should consider an aspect of a setting having something you dislike as a negative thing.

Kurald Galain
2008-06-27, 09:04 AM
I don't think you should consider an aspect of a setting having something you dislike as a negative thing.

Wow, you're really into hair-splitting here. "Dislike" and a "negative thing" are right under the same heading in the thesaurus.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-27, 09:07 AM
Hey, remember when we talked about races? Weren't those the days? :smalltongue:

So, why are so many people attracted to playing "non-standard" races like Mind Flayers or Goblins? Are these same people ticked off about Dragonborn and Tieflings? The people demand answers!

Morty
2008-06-27, 09:12 AM
Dislike is fine, it's that I don't think you should consider an aspect of a setting having something you dislike as a negative thing.

:smallconfused: So am I supposed not to care when a setting has got something I really don't like and will spoil my fun if I don't remove it?


So, why are so many people attracted to playing "non-standard" races like Mind Flayers or Goblins? Are these same people ticked off about Dragonborn and Tieflings? The people demand answers!

I never wanted to play a mind-flayer, but as a goblin-lover, I feel I have to answer to this. And the answer is: goblins aren't cooler-than-thou dragon wannabies. On the contrary, they're universal fantasy cannon fodder. Yet they're much easier to imagine among "typical" races such as elves or halflings than dragonborn. And are much cooler, of course. But they achieve that without being shoved into our faces with "see how kewl they are" mantra.
@V Ah, so now we start to call people we disagree with trolls?

Gypsy0001
2008-06-27, 09:13 AM
{Scrubbed}

Spiryt
2008-06-27, 09:18 AM
{Scrubbed}

{Scrubbed}

Paragon Badger
2008-06-27, 11:42 AM
Hey, remember when we talked about races? Weren't those the days? :smalltongue:

So, why are so many people attracted to playing "non-standard" races like Mind Flayers or Goblins? Are these same people ticked off about Dragonborn and Tieflings? The people demand answers!

What hath god wrought upon my humble thread? At least people aren't argueing with me anymore... :smallredface:

While I was never attracted to playing non-standard races, I always felt the exotic and unusual should be MM-only territory. With these races in the PHB, they become the norm, regardless of how rare the fluff says they are; because a good number of PCs will play that race and the books will all have alot of material designed around the core races.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-27, 03:35 PM
:smallconfused: So am I supposed not to care when a setting has got something I really don't like and will spoil my fun if I don't remove it?

Of course you should care, but "I don't like this" is not the same as "it is broken".


I never wanted to play a mind-flayer, but as a goblin-lover, I feel I have to answer to this. And the answer is: goblins aren't cooler-than-thou dragon wannabies. On the contrary, they're universal fantasy cannon fodder. Yet they're much easier to imagine among "typical" races such as elves or halflings than dragonborn. And are much cooler, of course. But they achieve that without being shoved into our faces with "see how kewl they are" mantra.

That right there (bolded) is why I love the Dragonborn and the Tieflings as core races.

Elves and dwarves are not the be all and end all of fantasy. They do not fit effortlessly into every setting. Fantasy worlds do not have to look like Middle Earth.

It's sort of ironic that people complain about Dragonborn and Tieflings being a shameless attempt to appeal to the general public, given that Dwarves, Elves and Halflings were only included in the first place because Lord of the Rings happened to be really big in the 70's.

Morty
2008-06-27, 04:13 PM
Of course you should care, but "I don't like this" is not the same as "it is broken".

I don't really think anyone implied that.


That right there (bolded) is why I love the Dragonborn and the Tieflings as core races.

Elves and dwarves are not the be all and end all of fantasy. They do not fit effortlessly into every setting. Fantasy worlds do not have to look like Middle Earth.

No, they don't, but many people think they're better that way. Or to put it another way: you love dragonborn and new tieflings, other people don't. Any discussion about it is as meaningful as bashing our heads against the wall.


It's sort of ironic that people complain about Dragonborn and Tieflings being a shameless attempt to appeal to the general public, given that Dwarves, Elves and Halflings were only included in the first place because Lord of the Rings happened to be really big in the 70's.

I honestly don't care why were they added to the game 30 years ago. What I care about is that lizard people and guys with horns and tails don't fit my picture of "typical fantasy race".

JaxGaret
2008-06-27, 04:34 PM
I don't really think anyone implied that.

Kurald did when they referred to the Oberoni fallacy in response to my comment about fluff being mutable, implying that disliking fluff is equivalent to feeling it is "broken", which is absurd.


No, they don't, but many people think they're better that way. Or to put it another way: you love dragonborn and new tieflings, other people don't.

It doesn't matter whether I or anyone else personally likes or dislikes Tieflings and Dragonborn, the same way that it doesn't matter whether I or anyone else personally likes or dislikes Dwarves or Elves.


Any discussion about it is as meaningful as bashing our heads against the wall.

Pretty much, and exactly my point when I stated that flavor is mutable and should be the end to this thread. No flavor text will ever please everybody; if you don't like it, change it.

And please keep your Oberoni fallacies to yourselves about that. That only applies to rules, not flavor.


I honestly don't care why were they added to the game 30 years ago. What I care about is that lizard people and guys with horns and tails don't fit my picture of "typical fantasy race".

You are entitled to your opinion, but don't push it on other people by defining what a "typical fantasy race" is.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-06-27, 05:05 PM
I don't know why tieflings are garnering so much hate for their "Play a Tiefling If..." section. They're all dumb, and moreover it doesn't have any bearing on how people ACTUALLY play them. It's not like one of those sections is going to say "Play a dwarf if you want to subvert the stereotype of the "gimli" dwarf by playing someone who has clan loyalty but really seeks to modernize his clan through introducing human society, and you have a really cool backstory about love and betrayal."

People like the "dark side hero". They really like them. They are so wicked popular that it doesn't even remotely surprise me that one would now be core.
Especially since tieflings were always an interesting and well-flavored race in 3.x.
Also, I don't like the idea that anyone playing a "dark side hero" will be a boring emo Drizz't clone; is there really no room in the entire archetype left for interesting reinterpretation?

I don't see anyone complaining that every straight-played elven archer is a Legolas clone.


In general, the only problem I have with tiefling's is that I wish they looked a little more like humans, with the random variances they had in 3.5.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-27, 07:15 PM
I don't know why tieflings are garnering so much hate for their "Play a Tiefling If..." section. They're all dumb, and moreover it doesn't have any bearing on how people ACTUALLY play them. It's not like one of those sections is going to say "Play a dwarf if you want to subvert the stereotype of the "gimli" dwarf by playing someone who has clan loyalty but really seeks to modernize his clan through introducing human society, and you have a really cool backstory about love and betrayal."

People like the "dark side hero". They really like them. They are so wicked popular that it doesn't even remotely surprise me that one would now be core. Especially since tieflings were always an interesting and well-flavored race in 3.x. Also, I don't like the idea that anyone playing a "dark side hero" will be a boring emo Drizz't clone; is there really no room in the entire archetype left for interesting reinterpretation?

I think the major complaint here is that you shouldn't need a race selection to play a "dark side hero" any more than you should for a "noble warrior." Those characteristics are intrinsic in the person, and it seems kind of cheap (to some) to pick a race that ostensibly has those characteristics instead. Many people objected to Drow because it seemed like people just chose them either for their over-the-top powers or because they felt more "rebellious" because they are the sole exemplar of Good for an Evil and Depraved Race.

You could say this seemed like "superficial" character development, to some.

Plus, the rarity factor is problematic; if every Tiefling is the descendant of the nobles of this fallen empire, then they should be very rare, yes? Yet you might end up with a campaign filled with Tieflings just because players like being Tieflings.

Not a personal criticism, mind you, but this is the general sense of why Tieflings garner so many haters. If anything, I think the demonic appearance was a good step by WotC to prevent people from just picking up a mechanically dark backstory without having any social-situation circumstances. In my setting, for instance, people are uncomfortable around Tieflings, but because they are so natural go-getters, they have been semi-integrated into society, and are quite prolific in some areas (via descendants!).

ArmorArmadillo
2008-06-27, 07:32 PM
I think the major complaint here is that you shouldn't need a race selection to play a "dark side hero" any more than you should for a "noble warrior." Those characteristics are intrinsic in the person, and it seems kind of cheap (to some) to pick a race that ostensibly has those characteristics instead. Many people objected to Drow because it seemed like people just chose them either for their over-the-top powers or because they felt more "rebellious" because they are the sole exemplar of Good for an Evil and Depraved Race.

You could say this seemed like "superficial" character development, to some.

Plus, the rarity factor is problematic; if every Tiefling is the descendant of the nobles of this fallen empire, then they should be very rare, yes? Yet you might end up with a campaign filled with Tieflings just because players like being Tieflings.

Not a personal criticism, mind you, but this is the general sense of why Tieflings garner so many haters. If anything, I think the demonic appearance was a good step by WotC to prevent people from just picking up a mechanically dark backstory without having any social-situation circumstances. In my setting, for instance, people are uncomfortable around Tieflings, but because they are so natural go-getters, they have been semi-integrated into society, and are quite prolific in some areas (via descendants!).
Well, you don't have to be a redeemed hero to be a Tiefling. You could just be a "descendant of the tieflings" but have your dark side totally under control.

I frankly don't care for the "Descendants of Bael Turath" thing, because it makes the race a political affiliation, which means that tieflings can be excessively regional. I preferred the "distant infernal ancestor" thing.
The rarity of tieflings in the world is ultimately something you end up making on your own.

Collin152
2008-06-27, 07:34 PM
Plus, the rarity factor is problematic; if every Tiefling is the descendant of the nobles of this fallen empire, then they should be very rare, yes? Yet you might end up with a campaign filled with Tieflings just because players like being Tieflings.


Four. Four Tieflings.
Too rare for four members of a race?

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-27, 07:54 PM
Four. Four Tieflings.
Too rare for four members of a race?

Well, unless your backstory has them all come from the same family, it might strain credibility that four ultra-rare Tieflings were able to meet each other and all decide to risk their life and limb together. You can make a reasonable argument for this case, but it certainly is something that bothers some people - just like the Drow (http://goblinscomic.com/d/20050711.html).

Parody, yes, but that's the sense. Like I said, feel free to use Tieflings and whatnot, but some people feel uncomfortable for one of the basic races to be one which, by fluff, should be extremely rare for
1) being only of the nobility,
2) of refugees from a catastrophically-smashed empire, who
3) look very much like demons, and therefore should have trouble finding non-Tiefling mates.

That rarity, combined with the emo-fluff us as annoying to some people as Dragonborn being paragons of virtue, as a race.

THAC0
2008-06-28, 12:24 AM
Plus, the rarity factor is problematic; if every Tiefling is the descendant of the nobles of this fallen empire, then they should be very rare, yes? Yet you might end up with a campaign filled with Tieflings just because players like being Tieflings.


Ah, but Tieflings always make little Tieflings, even when bred with humans or whatever.

THEY'RE TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD BY OUTBREEDING US! :smallbiggrin:

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-28, 12:38 AM
Ah, but Tieflings always make little Tieflings, even when bred with humans or whatever.

THEY'RE TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD BY OUTBREEDING US! :smallbiggrin:

So true, which makes having a Tiefling lover extra-scary no? For the ladies anyhow - I imagine giving birth to Rosemary's Baby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary%27s_Baby_(film)) is a sufficient negative to counteract whatever *ahem* "talents" the Tiefling form may provide. But actually, in my setting the fact that Tieflings keep ending up in positions of soft power (in merchant houses or academies) means that many human women are pressured into marriage with them. This does not help the perception of Tieflings by the human populace :smallamused:

EvilElitest
2008-06-28, 12:40 AM
Well, unless your backstory has them all come from the same family, it might strain credibility that four ultra-rare Tieflings were able to meet each other and all decide to risk their life and limb together. You can make a reasonable argument for this case, but it certainly is something that bothers some people - just like the Drow (http://goblinscomic.com/d/20050711.html).

Parody, yes, but that's the sense. Like I said, feel free to use Tieflings and whatnot, but some people feel uncomfortable for one of the basic races to be one which, by fluff, should be extremely rare for
1) being only of the nobility,
2) of refugees from a catastrophically-smashed empire, who
3) look very much like demons, and therefore should have trouble finding non-Tiefling mates.

That rarity, combined with the emo-fluff us as annoying to some people as Dragonborn being paragons of virtue, as a race.

It is explained in FR however, Demons and devils often have breeding programs to produce half Devils, and remember, Tielfling and Tielfing marraige produces another Tielfing
from
EE

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-28, 12:47 AM
It is explained in FR however, Demons and devils often have breeding programs to produce half Devils, and remember, Tielfling and Tielfing marraige produces another Tielfing
from
EE

:smallconfused: Did they change the 4e fluff of Tieflings in FR? 'cause in the MM, Tieflings and half-fiends (Cambions) are separately listed (MM 250 and 39, respectively).

EvilElitest
2008-06-28, 01:12 AM
:smallconfused: Did they change the 4e fluff of Tieflings in FR? 'cause in the MM, Tieflings and half-fiends (Cambions) are separately listed (MM 250 and 39, respectively).

Sorry, i mean in 3E had an explanation. 4E tieflings and 3E tieflings are really entirely different. I wouldn't mind 4E version if they simply had a different name

FR in 4E is simply a twisted abomination of FR as we know it sadly
from
EE

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-28, 01:14 AM
Sorry, i mean in 3E had an explanation. 4E tieflings and 3E tieflings are really entirely different. I wouldn't mind 4E version if they simply had a different name

FR in 4E is simply a twisted abomination of FR as we know it sadly
from
EE

Ah, makes sense. Carry on then :smalltongue:

EDIT: Hmm... plot hook. A Demon Prince seeking to fulfill an Ancient Prophecy (tm) organizes a cult which uses Tiefling Bordellos as a front to produce a secret Tiefling Army. Interesting...

Paragon Badger
2008-06-28, 01:39 AM
It is explained in FR however, Demons and devils often have breeding programs to produce half Devils, and remember, Tielfling and Tielfing marraige produces another Tielfing
from
EE

I was unaware of that little tidbit, but that's pretty much what I've done with tieflings in my homebrew setting. To keep them as a player race, however, I've just decided that many people seek to use the tieflings as a reversed weapon against the devils.

Which brings me to another point;


People like the "dark side hero". They really like them. They are so wicked popular that it doesn't even remotely surprise me that one would now be core.
Especially since tieflings were always an interesting and well-flavored race in 3.x.
Also, I don't like the idea that anyone playing a "dark side hero" will be a boring emo Drizz't clone; is there really no room in the entire archetype left for interesting reinterpretation?

The fluff description seems to pidgeonhole you into the dark side hero archetype, however.

Either you avoid it altogether (So the fluff is meaningless, thanks WOTC), you roll with it (trying to veer away from every cliche that comes with the archetype), or you subvert it (which can lead to an equally uninteresting character)

I imagine many people would go with the first choice, which completely negates the purpose of the fluff, making it ultimately useless as an aid. That's the problem with applying Rule 0 to fluff; it means you've just thrown away what was intended to be an aid to roleplaying.

Point is, I always thought the fluff for anything really should be interpretted, not re-interpretted. Vague enough so that all members of the race have some universal traits (Dwarves = Stubborn, Halflings = Plucky & Lucky), yet not specific enough that these traits define their entire personality, which seems to be the PHB's aim in the tiefling's description.

Morty
2008-06-28, 05:12 AM
Kurald did when they referred to the Oberoni fallacy in response to my comment about fluff being mutable, implying that disliking fluff is equivalent to feeling it is "broken", which is absurd.

Did he? I was under the impression that he called "if it can be changed, it's not stupid anymore" argument absurd, which it is.


Pretty much, and exactly my point when I stated that flavor is mutable and should be the end to this thread. No flavor text will ever please everybody; if you don't like it, change it.

The difference is, I think that all discussions abotu races are pointless, you just want those who dislike 4ed races to shut up.


You are entitled to your opinion, but don't push it on other people by defining what a "typical fantasy race" is.

I was unaware that voicing my opinion on what is and what isn't a typical fantasy race in my eyes is "pushing it" on people.


People like the "dark side hero". They really like them. They are so wicked popular that it doesn't even remotely surprise me that one would now be core.

Do we need a whole race dedicated to it, though? Can't you play "dark side hero" as a human or elf?


Especially since tieflings were always an interesting and well-flavored race in 3.x.

And two of their best features, i.e being demon descendants and subtly inhuman apperance were removed.

Charity
2008-06-28, 05:56 AM
Did he? I was under the impression that he called "if it can be changed, it's not stupid anymore" argument absurd, which it is.


Give me an O! Give me a BE! Give me a Roni!

Decide for yourself.



Do we need a whole race dedicated to it, though? Can't you play "dark side hero" as a human or elf?

Thats what the oh so terribly missed half orcs were about, so it seems that the prescident has been set by 1e.

Morty
2008-06-28, 06:09 AM
Decide for yourself.

*shrug* Alright then, he did invoke Oberoni Fallacy. I don't know if it is or isn't appropriate, but I didn't.


Thats what the oh so terribly missed half orcs were about, so it seems that the prescident has been set by 1e.

I was under the impression half-orcs were meant to be "me shash" Thog-like fellows. And yes, half-orcs were a bad race in 3ed. This doesn't justify 4ed races being bad in the same way.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-28, 06:15 AM
Do we need a whole race dedicated to it, though? Can't you play "dark side hero" as a human or elf?

Can't you play an "honourable warrior" as a human or elf, can't you be "tough, gruff and strong as bedrock" as a human or a dragonborn, can't you be "otherworldly and mysterious" as a half-elf or tiefling, can't you be "quick, quiet and wild" as a human or halfling, can't you be an "enthusiastic, outgoing leader" as a Dwarf, can't you be a "plucky hero who is all too easy to underestimate" as an Elf, can't you be a "decisive, resourceful hero with enough determination to face any challenge" as a member of any race?

All the race summaries go "play an X if you want..."

- X superficial bit of character flavour.
- Y game mechanical bonuses.
- To do well in Z class.

Charity
2008-06-28, 06:21 AM
The objections people have do seem to mainly stem from those summeries.

What folk seem to have missed is those summeries are intended for inexperianced players whom need a springboard for their first venture into roleplaying, those of us whom have been playing for years can happily ignore such basics, in exactly the same way that we all skipped the 'what is a role playing game' section at the front of the book.

Dhavaer
2008-06-28, 06:21 AM
So true, which makes having a Tiefling lover extra-scary no? For the ladies anyhow - I imagine giving birth to Rosemary's Baby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary%27s_Baby_(film)) is a sufficient negative to counteract whatever *ahem* "talents" the Tiefling form may provide.

Assuming you're talking about the horns, I'd imagine tieflings aren't born with horns any more than humans are (usually) born with teeth.

Morty
2008-06-28, 08:44 AM
Can't you play an "honourable warrior" as a human or elf, can't you be "tough, gruff and strong as bedrock" as a human or a dragonborn, can't you be "otherworldly and mysterious" as a half-elf or tiefling, can't you be "quick, quiet and wild" as a human or halfling, can't you be an "enthusiastic, outgoing leader" as a Dwarf, can't you be a "plucky hero who is all too easy to underestimate" as an Elf, can't you be a "decisive, resourceful hero with enough determination to face any challenge" as a member of any race?


I can. Which is precisely why dedicating races to single roles is stupid and unnecesary.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-28, 08:47 AM
I can. Which is precisely why dedicating races to single roles is stupid and unnecesary.

Good thing the books don't do it then, really.

As Charity points out, the summaries are clearly targeted at new players who might be unable to work out what they actually want to play, so they give a few helpful suggestions. Veterans like you and me can ignore that, but everybody starts somewhere.

Morty
2008-06-28, 08:58 AM
Good thing the books don't do it then, really.

Yeah, sure, pidgeonholing other races is equally bad both in 3ed and 4ed. It's just that Tieflings are pidgeonholed into an even narrower and fairly silly stereotype.


As Charity points out, the summaries are clearly targeted at new players who might be unable to work out what they actually want to play, so they give a few helpful suggestions. Veterans like you and me can ignore that, but everybody starts somewhere.

You can guide newcomers in a sublte way or a blunt way. 4ed does it in a blunt way. Not something that can't be ignored, of course. But I fear this discussion is going off-topic.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-06-28, 02:50 PM
Yeah, sure, pidgeonholing other races is equally bad both in 3ed and 4ed. It's just that Tieflings are pidgeonholed into an even narrower and fairly silly stereotype.



You can guide newcomers in a sublte way or a blunt way. 4ed does it in a blunt way. Not something that can't be ignored, of course. But I fear this discussion is going off-topic.
Of course, many new players are attracted to blunt play. WotC would be remiss to not notice that playing a Drizzit ripoff is very popular.

Generally, I prefer new players starting out with blunt, simple concepts, it introduces them to roleplaying without too much baggage and complexity to worry about.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-28, 03:07 PM
Assuming you're talking about the horns, I'd imagine tieflings aren't born with horns any more than humans are (usually) born with teeth.

Up to you, though I'd argue that for Tieflings, it's more "flavorful" to have them be born with little horn buds, like Devil Babies.

They're adowable! :smallbiggrin:

EvilElitest
2008-06-28, 03:12 PM
Here is my deal with Dragon Born and Tielfings. I don't mind them on their own so much, i just don't like the fact they have the names of totally different races. 4E dragon born and 3E dragon born are totally different and unique and i feel that it is bad form to make a totally different race off with the name of the old one, because i liked the old versions
from
EE