Quote from: hexgrid;766707You have to be logged into EnWorld to see it.

Ah, that explains a lot. I don't have an ENWorld account.

I don't have problems with the list.

Sadly I'm sure Drow will be one of the Elf subraces...

Quote from: YourSwordisMine;766753I don't have problems with the list.

Sadly I'm sure Drow will be one of the Elf subraces...

pretty sure.  The elf race section is the longest at 5 pages.  I'm guessing drow are in as a subrace.  Too many people like it.

Quote from: YourSwordisMine;766753Sadly I'm sure Drow will be one of the Elf subraces...

If they have Proficiency: Dual Scimitars I'll roll my eyes so hard that my skull will crack. :rant:

Quote from: flyerfan1991;766729Their backstory was one of the few good things in 4e.

The bad thing was when WotC tried to shoehorn the Dragonborn into FR instead of letting them be part of the generic world they created for 4e.

Dragonborn were a part of the FR world, they were just called different things: Like Dragon-Kin (Monsters of Faerûn), Half-Dragons (one was described in the Realms of War anthology) and even Saurials would've been good with Dragonborn stats. Granted 4E didn't use those terms (which would've been awesome) and instead plopped Tymanther into Mulhorand (OK in my book) but Dragon-ish guys were around in FR long before 4E came around.

And this doesn't even being to mention Races of Dragon supplement where Dragonborn (a ritual for someone to turn into a dragon and be re-born in the eyes of Bahamut) came from that I recall which could've easily been 'ported over into the Forgotten Realms campaign setting.


As for mulitple PHB, I don't think I ever bought one of them in 4E JUST for the races, rather the multitude of classes, paragon paths, rituals, and magical items associated with such supplements. That they added some races to the book was fine, but not a grand reason to pick on up IMO.

Quote from: Necrozius;766765If they have Proficiency: Dual Scimitars I'll roll my eyes so hard that my skull will crack. :rant:

They won't.

Scimitars are light weapons so you only need Proficiency:Scimitar to dual wield them...

Quote from: jadrax;766774They won't.

Scimitars are light weapons so you only need Proficiency:Scimitar to dual wield them...

Which is great because I hate having to delve into the plethora of character options just to create the sort of character I envision. This was a pretty big problem for me in both v3.5 (ridiculous penalties IMO) and 4E (needed a special power to dual-wield w/o being a Fighter or Ranger). I'm glad this sort of simplicity is hard-coded into the rules.

Quote from: Batman;766776Which is great because I hate having to delve into the plethora of character options just to create the sort of character I envision. This was a pretty big problem for me in both v3.5 (ridiculous penalties IMO) and 4E (needed a special power to dual-wield w/o being a Fighter or Ranger). I'm glad this sort of simplicity is hard-coded into the rules.

In the RAW, what you can Duel Wield is a bit hit and miss tbh.

To get the benefits, you have to use two light weapons. So Dual Scimitar is fine, but Rapier and Dagger is out.

In the play test, there was a Feat that allowed you to have one non-light weapon, so you could use Rapier and Dagger, but there was no way of using two long swords or two battle axes.

The inclusion of dragonborn as an option pleases me. Much more interesting "big guys" than half-orcs in my opinion, and make for great Klingon-types in the right set up.

I won't allow Tieflings or Dragonborn in my game setting---unless someone uses them on the unclaimed continent, because my setting has a back story that boils down to "human wizards did it." They're responsible directly for dwarves, elves, and dragons and indirectly for halflings. There are in setting (or if you prefer "story") reasons for what happened and why they exist.


I also probably won't allow Sorcerers, or Warlocks, or the like if they're in, simply because I'm likely to be the GM, and I think magic users can have any source of power they like, but the mechanics will be the same, roughly.

Quote from: One Horse Town;766689Not a fan of Dragon Born but easily remedied.

As long as gnomes are back in and we are not getting three PHBs, I am cool. But pretty much my sentiment as well.

Quote from: jadrax;766790In the RAW, what you can Duel Wield is a bit hit and miss tbh.

To get the benefits, you have to use two light weapons. So Dual Scimitar is fine, but Rapier and Dagger is out.

In the play test, there was a Feat that allowed you to have one non-light weapon, so you could use Rapier and Dagger, but there was no way of using two long swords or two battle axes.

Right, though I'd rather spend a feat to dual-wield better weapons or weapon-combination rather than reducing a penalty to hit. Luckily a Human can grab a feat at 1st level in lieu of all +1's across the ability score board, so a Rapier / Dagger fighter at 1st level is easily do-able.

As for no TWF Dual Longswords, Rapier, Battleaxes it basically comes down to balance and game mechanics. I know there are RL example of dual-rapiers and other one-handed weapon, but from a game perspective it's just slightly OP (not ridiculous, just an always better option than two light or one light and one not light).

I also wouldn't be surprised if later down the road we didn't see something beef this up (akin to Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting from v3.5). Also, you can still use 2 one-handed weapons and just reflavor the off-hand as a die smaller because it's in your "off-hand" and you can't utilize the full potential of the weapon as if it was your dominant hand.

Quote from: Silverlion;766866I won't allow Tieflings or Dragonborn in my game setting---unless someone uses them on the unclaimed continent, because my setting has a back story that boils down to "human wizards did it." They're responsible directly for dwarves, elves, and dragons and indirectly for halflings. There are in setting (or if you prefer "story") reasons for what happened and why they exist.


I also probably won't allow Sorcerers, or Warlocks, or the like if they're in, simply because I'm likely to be the GM, and I think magic users can have any source of power they like, but the mechanics will be the same, roughly.

I'm not sure if I'm going to convert my Ravnica: City of Guilds campaign (taken from Magic: The Gathering's Setting) that currently uses 4E-rules over to D&D:Next, but if I do I'll have to remove Dwarves, Halflings,  Orcs, and Half-Orcs. Change Dragonborn to Viashino. Change Tieflings to Daemons. Create Minotaurs and Genasi (and then convert them to Elementals). And hope races like Goblins are an option in the DMG.

Quote from: Necrozius;766765If they have Proficiency: Dual Scimitars I'll roll my eyes so hard that my skull will crack. :rant:

If they go by forgotten realms standards it should be weapons mostly used in tight corners.  Speaking about knives, daggers, and hand crossbow.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;766670

No big shockers.  I suppose some people might be turned off by tieflings and dragonborn, but no warforged, so that's good?


the biggest thing for me is that hopefully all those 4e fans that bitched about the price of the PHB will be quiet now, because you needed to buy what?  3 4e PHBs to get the same content?

Tieflings and Dragonborn. Me no likey. But to be honest, mainly interested in the monster manual. On the fence about the system at the moment, but we'll see how the free release plays out.