Preface: Yes, D&D doesn't actually need more core races. This is just for those who like adding extra toppings to their pizza for kicks.
For those of you are familiar with 4e's roster of added core races, which ones would you ever consider adding to older versions of the game?
Personally I'm intrigued by the wilden because
A) their unusual flavor as the absolute newest kids on the block since they've only just come into existence. Elves and dwarves are often portrayed as the elder races, humans and halflings as the current movers and shakers, so there's thematic room for a group that is all potential and no established expectations.
B) Plant people can be amusingly alien.
C) They can disrupt existing power structures without actually being villains. What happens to your ancient elven cities when they suddenly have to contend with "immigrants" who sprung out of the ground through no choice of their own?
What about you guys? What's your take on dragonborn, wilden, revised gnomes, tieflings, revised eladrin, aasimar (deva), shardminds, etc?
Ok, my opinion:
dragonborn: I like them,and many dnd settings have 'lizardmen' in various forms. Fundementally, not really new at all.
wilden: Should be easy to fit into most settings; they don't really excite me though.
revised gnomes: I don't really like gnomes, so i am biased.
tieflings: They changed their appearence but I am fond of tieflings. Seems easy to fit them in anywhere.
revised eladrin: I like them and play on the strong connection to the fey realm.
aasimar (deva) Love them. Got hooked when I played a Deva character with a 'memory of a thousand lifetimes' racial ability. Great fun when he stumbled upon the skeletal body of his previous life and had a flashback.
shardminds: Very setting specific I guess. Might be perfect, might seem 'wtf!?'
I like dragonborn because they seem to fill an "honor-bound martial type" niche better than dwarves, elves, or half-orcs do - at least it's a debatable overlap in the case of the dwarves. Trouble is they can step on the hobgoblins' toes a bit in that role.
Yeah, shardminds are a rough fit. they've got a good backstory and some funky motivations, but they just stick out at an angle more than any of 4e's other expanded options.
The one thing I dislike about both these races is their "word-word" names. I suppose I can steal the "dray" name for dragonborn from Dark Sun, but it's awful close to "drow". I don't know what to do about shardmind; it was sort of inexcusable the way they appeared in the same book as a class called the battlemind. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;736555I like dragonborn because they seem to fill an "honor-bound martial type" niche better than dwarves, elves, or half-orcs do - at least it's a debatable overlap in the case of the dwarves. Trouble is they can step on the hobgoblins' toes a bit in that role.
I didn't like Dragonborn until someone pointed out that they were basically D&D Klingons.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;736555I like dragonborn because they seem to fill an "honor-bound martial type" niche better than dwarves, elves, or half-orcs do - at least it's a debatable overlap in the case of the dwarves. Trouble is they can step on the hobgoblins' toes a bit in that role.
There is nothing "honor bound" about hobgoblins, so you have nothing to worry about in that regard.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;736555The one thing I dislike about both these races is their "word-word" names. I suppose I can steal the "dray" name for dragonborn from Dark Sun, but it's awful close to "drow". I don't know what to do about shardmind; it was sort of inexcusable the way they appeared in the same book as a class called the battlemind. :rolleyes:
Just call them 'shards' like I do.
The battlemind name is dumb.
They could have been called... I dunno, 'gatekeepers' or something and been given some sort of backstory where they watch the barriers between worlds and help prevent incursions from the Far Realm or something. Instead they just got a super generic name and super generic flavor.
Quote from: Old One Eye;736582There is nothing "honor bound" about hobgoblins, so you have nothing to worry about in that regard.
I dunno, for a while (when I started playing) they were sort of Samurai like. I remember having a figure of one with a samurai helmet.
Quote from: Old One Eye;736582There is nothing "honor bound" about hobgoblins, so you have nothing to worry about in that regard.
Huh, I don't know how, but I seem to have picked up some assumption that they were in 3 and 4e. I've certainly used them that way. I don't have the monster manuals with me to check right now.
Wow, did D&D really go until 4e without the "klingon" archetype in its basic player/NPC race lineup?
QuoteJust call them 'shards' like I do.
Good idea.
Regarding the battlemind, yeah, that was not one of 4e's finest moments, either in terms of rules or flavor. To be fair though, they really couldn't use the
"watch the barriers between worlds and help prevent incursions from the Far Realm" line again because they'd already done that for a bunch of other classes (and it's part of the wilden's flavor text).
Quote from: Piestrio;736564I didn't like Dragonborn until someone pointed out that they were basically D&D Klingons.
I always thought that's what the Githyanki were.
Or maybe Githyanki are like Romulans to the Githzerai's Vulcans.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;736555The one thing I dislike about both these races is their "word-word" names. I suppose I can steal the "dray" name for dragonborn from Dark Sun, but it's awful close to "drow". I don't know what to do about shardmind; it was sort of inexcusable the way they appeared in the same book as a class called the battlemind. :rolleyes:
Draconian?
Or make something up that appeals.
I am never overlyy fond of the "word-word" naming. It allways feels too dumbed down or catchword-esque. Same for character names and equipment. etc.
The Dragonborn and the Wilden are good ones to port over though from what I've seen.
I prefer the Wilderlands take on Draconians - distant descendants of dragons with a faint purple or green hue to the skin and scales. Not a fan of the full-bore fire-breathing lizard folk.
The concept of tieflings is fine, hate the name. Makes them sound like a mischievous fey race, not demon-born.
Eladrin serve no distinct purpose. They're elves.
Quote from: Haffrung;736737I prefer the Wilderlands take on Draconians - distant descendants of dragons with a faint purple or green hue to the skin and scales. Not a fan of the full-bore fire-breathing lizard folk.
The concept of tieflings is fine, hate the name. Makes them sound like a mischievous fey race, not demon-born.
Eladrin serve no distinct purpose. They're elves.
More specifically they're high/grey elves as distinct from wood/wild elves. Which works for me, especially with the flavor they gave them.
Quote from: Bill;736461Ok, my opinion:
dragonborn: I like them,and many dnd settings have 'lizardmen' in various forms. Fundementally, not really new at all.
wilden: Should be easy to fit into most settings; they don't really excite me though.
revised gnomes: I don't really like gnomes, so i am biased.
tieflings: They changed their appearence but I am fond of tieflings. Seems easy to fit them in anywhere.
revised eladrin: I like them and play on the strong connection to the fey realm.
aasimar (deva) Love them. Got hooked when I played a Deva character with a 'memory of a thousand lifetimes' racial ability. Great fun when he stumbled upon the skeletal body of his previous life and had a flashback.
shardminds: Very setting specific I guess. Might be perfect, might seem 'wtf!?'
That pretty much covers it for me. Except I have no clue about Shardminds.
I really love the new take on gnomes. I would play one actually.
QuoteOr maybe Githyanki are like Romulans to the Githzerai's Vulcans.
Shit, I never even noticed how close this parallel is!:eek:
Quote from: Marleycat;736758I really love the new take on gnomes. I would play one actually.
It's better, but still kind of fuzzy to me - instead of blurring the line between the dwarf and halfling it now blurs the line between the elf and the halfling. To me it just doesn't stick out enough yet.
Sometimes it just looks like the designers are struggling
not to accept as core the most vivid and influential interpretation of gnomes to date - tinker gnomes. A lot of other fantasy game settings have just given in to the tinker gnome concept because it's so iconic and easy to play, so the fact that the game that
invented the concept is resiting it comes off as rather odd.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;736777Sometimes it just looks like the designers are struggling not to accept as core the most vivid and influential interpretation of gnomes to date - tinker gnomes. A lot of other fantasy game settings have just given in to the tinker gnome concept because it's so iconic and easy to play, so the fact that the game that invented the concept is resiting it comes off as rather odd.
Well, to me, this is the most vivid and influential interpretation of gnomes
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/48/Wil_Huygen_-_Gnomes.jpeg)
The bestselling books by Wil Hyugen
I mean, sure, it wasn't Harry Potter or LOTR, but they were extremely popular books for about 5-6 years.
Quote from: JeremyR;736779Well, to me, this is the most vivid and influential interpretation of gnomes
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/48/Wil_Huygen_-_Gnomes.jpeg)
The bestselling books by Wil Hyugen
I mean, sure, it wasn't Harry Potter or LOTR, but they were extremely popular books for about 5-6 years.
Right here. Any description of gnomes that does not feel at home in the garden is actually describing something else and calling it a gnome.
Quote from: Old One Eye;736781Right here. Any description of gnomes that does not feel at home in the garden is actually describing something else and calling it a gnome.
But you do recognize that it can feel a little redundant with the themes of some of the other races?
Also, the modern fantasy notion of elves doesn't match many classic folk interpretations of elves, but I would argue the modern one is more generally iconic and useful.
Quote from: LibraryLass;736749More specifically they're high/grey elves as distinct from wood/wild elves. Which works for me, especially with the flavor they gave them.
Just get rid of the teleport ability. It fucks up so many settings.
Quote from: Piestrio;736564I didn't like Dragonborn until someone pointed out that they were basically D&D Klingons.
I like playing the Proud Warrior Race Guy, and I did play a Dragonborn Paladin which was quite a bit of fun, but really, they're a fairly weak implementation of the archetype. There's very little to tell 4e's dragonborn apart from the other races other than "warlike humanoid dragons." There was some vague fluff about the Arkhosian Empire that we more or less ran with when we played, but it never really did come alive to me.
A few modern CRPGs have been reskinning Orcs as more sympathetic, player character material, and have done a fine job of selling them as a playable Proud Warrior Race. WoW and Elder Scrolls spring to mind (in fact, I just realized I'm currently playing an Orc in
both). I think they did a mighty fine job of it; WoW in particular has had plenty of opportunity from day one to get across a specific visual identity to its races; starting areas and, later on, settlements for each races, all carry a distinct look, as do voice-acting mannerisms, greetings and of course the game text. Elder Scrolls doesn't go that far but they do make a big deal of getting across each race's backstory and standing within the Empire.
Incidentally, this is why I like Talislanta's oodles of races; they don't really get 10,000 word backgrounds and White Wolfesque first-person histories, but the game does a fantastic job of presenting a distinct visual identity for each, both in the art and in the text.
I think that having a lot of races is nice in a toolbox sort of way. Dragon born may work in some places, hobgoblins in others.
But the huge selection of races confuses players. But adding a source for the odd "cross dimensional" character is good if it improves overall fun.
Plus I may be the only one, but I really like the elf/eldarin split. It is a popular race that is now themed the way a player wants. And it is so much better than sub-races.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;736777Sometimes it just looks like the designers are struggling not to accept as core the most vivid and influential interpretation of gnomes to date - tinker gnomes. A lot of other fantasy game settings have just given in to the tinker gnome concept because it's so iconic and easy to play, so the fact that the game that invented the concept is resiting it comes off as rather odd.
I wouldn't surprise me if that was a conscious choice, I recall a fair amount of animosity to the tinker-gnome archetype in the waning days of 3e. I'm still iffy on it myself-- they tend to be annoying jokes more than actual characters.
Quote from: Dog Quixote;736877Just get rid of the teleport ability. It fucks up so many settings.
How do you figure?
Quote from: LibraryLass;736993I wouldn't surprise me if that was a conscious choice, I recall a fair amount of animosity to the tinker-gnome archetype in the waning days of 3e. I'm still iffy on it myself-- they tend to be annoying jokes more than actual characters.
But we could argue that the standard dwarf archetype is a joke as well, certainly in the wake of Gimli's portrayal in the LotR movies
refreshing the stereotypes.
The thing is, I run D&D for newbies a lot, and this colors my criterion for races. The newbies I've run into really appear to benefit from clear cut races with a few obvious cool hooks. Elves and dwarves really work, while the more traditional 3e-and-down gnomes never get played (I suspect because of their wishy-washy redundancy)... but the tinker gnome does. People come to D&D expecting the sort of gnomes they've encountered in World of Warcraft and other fantasy games. I don't feel like dissuading them if that's what gives them a strong framework to grow from.
QuoteA few modern CRPGs have been reskinning Orcs as more sympathetic, player character material, and have done a fine job of selling them as a playable Proud Warrior Race. WoW and Elder Scrolls spring to mind (in fact, I just realized I'm currently playing an Orc in both). I think they did a mighty fine job of it; WoW in particular has had plenty of opportunity from day one to get across a specific visual identity to its races; starting areas and, later on, settlements for each races, all carry a distinct look, as do voice-acting mannerisms, greetings and of course the game text.
This is a good observation, but the dragonborn do have a flavor distinction over orcs - they pull off the noble/majestic/dignified part of the noble-warrior-race shtick more naturally. Orcs can be reflavored in many ways, but most people expect "crude and savage" to be in there somewhere.
Quote from: JeremyR;736779Well, to me, this is the most vivid and influential interpretation of gnomes
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/48/Wil_Huygen_-_Gnomes.jpeg)
The bestselling books by Wil Hyugen
I mean, sure, it wasn't Harry Potter or LOTR, but they were extremely popular books for about 5-6 years.
Those books were popular when they came out in the 70s too. Our library had the whole set. They were advertised on TV! And they got one or two cartoons on top of that. That and the faerie series were great stuff.
Quote from: LibraryLass;736993I wouldn't surprise me if that was a conscious choice, I recall a fair amount of animosity to the tinker-gnome archetype in the waning days of 3e. I'm still iffy on it myself-- they tend to be annoying jokes more than actual characters.
That is probably why tinker gnomes phased out of D&D. Joke race. That and they are a Dragonlance specific race untill Spelljammer. And there might be copyrights interfering. Never know.
But mostly its the fact they are a joke race.
Quote from: Marleycat;736757That pretty much covers it for me. Except I have no clue about Shardminds.
Shardminds I guess fall into the category of Warforged; living construct maybe?
They would feel out of place in many settings but perhaps only because we don't have any real history of using them before.
The 4E rationale for not going with tinker gnomes:
"DRAGONLANCE presented an iconic image of the gnome, but the concept of tinker gnomes and their crazy machines has now been thoroughly used by games such as World of Warcraft, and many D&D players dislike the technological element that version of the gnome brings to the game."--Wizards Presents: Races and Classes, 51
So the tinker gnome was shot down for being ... too WoW-like and too far removed from traditional D&D. Sort of goes against the dominant narrative on 4E. ;)
Count me among those who disliked the technological implications of tinker gnomes. Clockworks and other intricate machines are not found in my D&D settings.
I fully support adding new races to settings IF they enhance the setting, make sense in the setting and benefit the campaign by adding variety, freshness, etc.
For me, only certain settings can support the kitchen sink "all races / classes are here" concept. I have trouble with the kumbaya aspect that suddenly a whole load of very different races can suddenly co-exist without justifications that make sense in the fantasy world.
A strong world setting can support any species/culture. Just include the ones who make sense for your world. I've always liked the Dragonborn/Tieflings. I've seen one the current Alpha playtest packet (not public) for D&D Next and they're both in, with full stats, so you can work from that.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;736875But you do recognize that it can feel a little redundant with the themes of some of the other races?
Also, the modern fantasy notion of elves doesn't match many classic folk interpretations of elves, but I would argue the modern one is more generally iconic and useful.
That concept, of themes, really does not even register with my way of thinking. It feels like saying Bellorussia should not exist because Russia already has that theme. Makes no sense to my way of thinking.
Quote from: Old One Eye;737551That concept, of themes, really does not even register with my way of thinking. It feels like saying Bellorussia should not exist because Russia already has that theme. Makes no sense to my way of thinking.
Or for that matter, that kobolds should not exist because there are already goblins, hobgoblins and gnolls should not exist because there are already orcs, trolls and bugbears should not exist because there are already ogres, troglodytes should not exist because there are already lizardfolk... I can keep going if you want. Why not, I say, if you want both there's no reason not to have both.
Quote from: LibraryLass;737581Or for that matter, that kobolds should not exist because there are already goblins, hobgoblins and gnolls should not exist because there are already orcs, trolls and bugbears should not exist because there are already ogres, troglodytes should not exist because there are already lizardfolk... I can keep going if you want. Why not, I say, if you want both there's no reason not to have both.
Problem is though you end up with a lot of shit that is mostly blandly the same.
This is especially true if we don't have ecology background and culture just statblocks.
I much prefer a toolbox to build races and some archetypes built from the tool kit as opposed to 30 playable races and 10,000 monsters.
but I also like races and classes to be setting specific because it shows some imagination and thought on behalf of the GM.
Quote from: jibbajibba;737627Problem is though you end up with a lot of shit that is mostly blandly the same.
Right, and in my personal experience this is most problematic for player races since the game often offers too many choices already without gumming up the works with options that aren't meaningfully distinct from each other.
I'm not saying the pre-4e / non-tinker gnome is a serious problem or anything. Just that at my table it rarely got used, and when someone did use it no meaningfully distinct roleplaying came out of it, so it felt like a waste of pages and world space.
QuoteIt feels like saying Bellorussia should not exist because Russia already has that theme.
The real world is famous for being very poorly designed, full of bland and confusing redundancy.:D
QuoteOr for that matter, that kobolds should not exist because there are already goblins, hobgoblins and gnolls should not exist because there are already orcs, trolls and bugbears should not exist because there are already ogres, troglodytes should not exist because there are already lizardfolk... I can keep going if you want. Why not, I say, if you want both there's no reason not to have both.
I actually do think the game is cluttered with humanoids and some of them need to be more distinct to justify their pages.
Gnolls and orcs do occupy the same design space and don't feel different enough in play, so I rarely use both in a setting or adventure. Hobgoblins have a more disciplined, militaristic theme than orcs so I sometimes include them but they could still benfit from a little more distinction (4e did a good job I think). Goblins and kobolds are pretty close, but it helps that goblins are more in-your-face and back-stabby while kobolds have the trap focus and (post 3e) dragon/sorcery theme. Troglodytes have a solid mechanical distinction from lizardfolk.
The way I handled humanoid overlap in my 4E game was to posit that each terrain had its own large humanoid species and its own little humanoid species. So plains got humans and halflings, forests got elves and gnomes, mountains got goliaths and dwarves, swamps got hobgoblins and goblins, and deserts got dragonborn and kobolds. And then I ruthlessly cut out all the other species.
Quote from: Maltese Changeling;737673The way I handled humanoid overlap in my 4E game was to posit that each terrain had its own large humanoid species and its own little own humanoid species. So plains got humans and halflings, forests got elves and gnomes, mountains got goliaths and dwarves, swamps got hobgoblins and goblins, and deserts got dragonborn and kobolds. And then I ruthlessly cut out all the other species.
That's cool.
I prefer human-centric settings, but if other races are allowed, I'll pretty much let in the whole Star Wars cantina - so long as the various options are reasonably balanced.
Actually, I did like the Gnoll race, which was a DDI exclusive IIRC.
Quote from: Maltese Changeling;737673The way I handled humanoid overlap in my 4E game was to posit that each terrain had its own large humanoid species and its own little humanoid species. So plains got humans and halflings, forests got elves and gnomes, mountains got goliaths and dwarves, swamps got hobgoblins and goblins, and deserts got dragonborn and kobolds. And then I ruthlessly cut out all the other species.
Huh, I like it.
Quote from: Saplatt;737814Actually, I did like the Gnoll race, which was a DDI exclusive IIRC.
I'm pretty sure it was also in the monsters as NPCs section at the back of the monster manual.
Quote from: Saplatt;737814Actually, I did like the Gnoll race, which was a DDI exclusive IIRC.
Complete book of Humanoids added Gnolls as a PC race.
Red Steel added a stable race of effectively Half-Gnolls as a PC race I believe.
Quote from: Omega;738201Complete book of Humanoids added Gnolls as a PC race.
Red Steel added a stable race of effectively Half-Gnolls as a PC race I believe.
In 4e, though.