# PH3 Playtest Race: Wilden



## Rani (Apr 24, 2009)

They've put the name up for it here: Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page

Anybody heard of them before?


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 24, 2009)

That's new, wasn't there before. Unless that is a mistake. Hmm, either rename of a race, or a new race. It is close to Wilder though a Psionic class from 3.5. It be funny if they made a mistake and the Wilden is actually a Psionic class in 4e based off the Wilder


----------



## tsadkiel (Apr 24, 2009)

Could be the Narnia style talking animals mentioned in Races & Classes, or perhaps a renamed hengeyokai.  But if it's a race of Celestial badger-dwarves from the Astral Sea, I will not be happy.


----------



## Klaus (Apr 24, 2009)

Nowhere does it say "race", just "PH3 Platest: Wilden". I think a typo here can make the Wilder...


----------



## Inyssius (Apr 24, 2009)

Except we already know that they're playtesting a new race from PHB3 this month.


----------



## Rani (Apr 24, 2009)

Klaus said:


> Nowhere does it say "race", just "PH3 Platest: Wilden". I think a typo here can make the Wilder...




That's a good point. While they did mention last month that we'd be seeing a playtest race this month, it doesn't say "race" there now. It's possible they changed their minds on what to show us. Who knows!


----------



## hong (Apr 24, 2009)

As was mentioned elsewhere, the Dragon TOC still says race:

Dragon #374 Table of Contents


----------



## Rani (Apr 24, 2009)

hong said:


> As was mentioned elsewhere, the Dragon TOC still says race:
> 
> Dragon #374 Table of Contents




Oops, haha, nevermind then.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 24, 2009)

Well it is up: Dragon 374: Wilden Playtest

_With the dew of their creation still wet upon their brows, the wilden emerge from the Feywild's unspoiled reaches, from ancient bogs and primeval forests. Awakened to combat the growing corruption plaguing the lands, they shoulder the burden of restoring the natural order and purging the aberrant horror from the world._

They are based off the Killoren.


----------



## kenmarable (Apr 24, 2009)

Live now. They are re-do of the killoren from Races of the Wild.

*Update:* Ninja'ed!! I knew I shouldn't have bothered.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Apr 24, 2009)

Interesting (and not surprising) that PH3 is beginning to get even farther away from the "traditional" fantasy races. (I say this as neither a good thing nor a bad thing, just an unsurprising thing once we've gotten to the third PH.)

I think these guys are interesting. They don't leap out as appealing to me _as a PC race_, but that's purely based on my own tastes in characters, not a comment on the material. I think it's quite solid, and I like the notion of the world developing a race of "antibodies" (my term, not the article's) against the encroachment of the Far Realm. I also like the idea that said race is almost as alien, in some respects, as the Far Realm creatures themselves. I think there's a lot of story potential there.


----------



## Riley (Apr 24, 2009)

Huh.  Well, that's different.

If I were looking for plant people, I'dve gone with the story/flavor of the Volodni.


----------



## Rechan (Apr 24, 2009)

I instinctively like these guys; they appeal to me from a story perspective. I also like the way that the aspects influence their personality - that sort can really appeal to the theatrical out there. Also, yay fey. Intriguing that they are "new", and originate due to Far Realms/Feywild meetings. Also that they use "We" instead of I. The psychology is fairly intriguing.


----------



## Mephistopheles (Apr 24, 2009)

So if we get a 4E Wilder class I can play a Wilden Wilder?


----------



## RangerWickett (Apr 24, 2009)

Mephistopheles said:


> So if we get a 4E Wilder class I can play a Wilden Wilder?




And then you can multiclass to sorcerer and become a wilden wilder/wild mage. Almost as fun as a warforged warlord/warlock.


----------



## Rechan (Apr 24, 2009)

RangerWickett said:


> Almost as fun as a warforged warlord/warlock.



Don't you mean a Warforged Warlord|Warden/Warlock wielding a Warhammer? (| = Hybrid class, /= multi-class).


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 24, 2009)

I am neutral right now, was hoping for a Psionic themed race, but it looks interesting. I like the appearance they have.

Plus the talk of the Far Realm makes me hopeful for Psionics/Aberration race.


----------



## Rechan (Apr 24, 2009)

Fallen Seraph said:


> Plus the talk of the Far Realm makes me hopeful for Psionics/Aberration race.



Dude. I just imagined an Ooze-based race.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 24, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Dude. I just imagined an Ooze-based race.



I am gunning for Elan. Hell, being able to hide in plain sight would be a great way to infiltrate the world(s). 

One thing I am really liking actually is the fact that since the Wilder isn't a normal race, so hopefully this will spread throughout all the other PHB3 races.


----------



## chaotix42 (Apr 24, 2009)

Nice! I remember these guys. Thought they were pretty cool flavor-wise back in 3e, but the mechanics didn't appeal to me; these do! I especially like the fact that you can change aspects & encounter powers when you rest. Nifty. 

I hope these pics are black & white at the moment, and that they'll be a healthy shade of green in PHB3.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 24, 2009)

chaotix42 said:


> I hope these pics are black & white at the moment, and that they'll be a healthy shade of green in PHB3.



Yeah that is just concept art, in the physical descriptions it talks about their colour:


> As a wilden ages, its body moves through the seasons. Young wilden exist in the spring stage, filled with life and vigor, their bodies a rich green hue. The summer phase marks maturation and the wilden’s body reaches its full size and stature. Wilden in autumn phase undergo a profound change, their bodies turning colors to fiery reds, yellows, and orange. Finally, the winter phase, the last stage, heralds the end of the wilden’s life, as bright colors give way to browns and white, and the body thins and withers. A typical wilden lives upwards of one hundred years.


----------



## Hawke (Apr 24, 2009)

Not really what I was expecting... as a result I'm kind of really unimpressed. I mean, if it were a MM3 preview, I'd be interested... I just don't seem to see much of a drive or a lot of complexity that entices me to say "I want to be one!" 

Maybe that's just cause it's so far from what I was thinking... I'll have to revisit it. 

I do agree with Fallen Seraph that a good thing is it seems they are willing to step outside some traditional bounds... this might not be the race, but it seems like they're thinking.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Apr 24, 2009)

That preview made me think of this: something positive: archive

I suggest that all Wilden have Southern accents; love of french fried tater chips optional.


----------



## chaotix42 (Apr 24, 2009)

Ah, that's cool Seraph! I didn't read the flavor stuff at all, just the mechanics. 

So, what does Con & Wis work well with? Shaman springs to mind.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Apr 24, 2009)

Hey, those guys come in handy! They´ll fit very well into a future Earthdawn 4e campaign, and i can use them to represent the stranger parts of forests where feywild meets POLand.
I admit, i really crave more fantastic races that are unique to 4e. Come on, more fantasy and creativity, people!


----------



## Jack99 (Apr 24, 2009)

Stuff like this definitely won't make me buy PHB3. It's just too far away from the traditional fantasy game I want to play. But I think it's fair enough that WotC explore that avenue, since quite a few seem interested in "weird" races and they (WotC) have already covered my needs for races.


----------



## ferratus (Apr 24, 2009)

Completely uninteresting to me, but I saw some people expressing the hope that the Killoren would come back in the speculation thread, so I'm happy for them.

I'd like to see my Dromites come back myself.  They were human enough to be easy to insert in a campaign world, but the insect flavor made them fantastical as well.


----------



## Rani (Apr 24, 2009)

I already want to incorporate these guys into my campaign as an NPC race (maybe a PC race when the PH3 actually comes out)! Their unique relationship to the earth and their antagonism with the FarRealm works perfectly into my story!


----------



## ppaladin123 (Apr 24, 2009)

I prefer the name Killoren. It is easier to pronounce and sounds nicer than Wilden.

I like the variable aspects but the actual racial powers are sort of boring, weak and situational.

I might want to make a Wilden Shaman at some point though.


----------



## RefinedBean (Apr 24, 2009)

The mechanics are par for the course, but I really enjoy the fact that they tied 'em in with the fluff.

Honestly, these guys intrigue me about as much as Goliaths do; but I don't expect every race to trip my trigger, and the fluff is substantially different from everything else we've seen that it doesn't bother me that much.

I'd like to see two players play stumpy, identical-looking Wilden that keep giggling "One of us!"  Although I wouldn't want to PLAY with 'em.


----------



## Sonny (Apr 24, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> I think these guys are interesting. They don't leap out as appealing to me _as a PC race_, but that's purely based on my own tastes in characters, not a comment on the material. I think it's quite solid, and I like the notion of the world developing a race of "antibodies" (my term, not the article's) against the encroachment of the Far Realm. I also like the idea that said race is almost as alien, in some respects, as the Far Realm creatures themselves. I think there's a lot of story potential there.




I like it. But then again, that's how the gods came about in a campaign I created a few years ago. Cthulu/Old one types invading the universe and corrupting it, caused the gods to come into being to rid it of the foreign entities. Strange thing is, I can't remember what book/setting gave me the idea in the first place.

I know I got the whole universe  with solar systems and planets being compared to cells and the like from Twin Peaks. But where I got the whole gods as an antibody thing escapes me. Sound familiar to anyone?


----------



## Belorin (Apr 24, 2009)

So lets see, one race from Races of Stone, one from Races of the Wild; I'm going to come right out and say the Illumians are in. If not PHB3, then PHB4.

That being said, although I didn't get any of the Races books, I was intrigued by the Killoren as a plant race cause I always wanted to play a Treant when I was younger.

Bel


----------



## chaotix42 (Apr 24, 2009)

ppaladin123 said:


> I like the variable aspects but the actual racial powers are sort of boring, weak and situational.




I don't think they're boring, weak, or situational at all! Well, they each rely on a specific situation, but the situations are all pretty likely to occur in any given encounter. 

One requires you to hit with a close or area attack - pretty simple if you're built for it. Then teleport as a free action & 1 target grants CA to you & 1 ally? Blast, teleport for free, then move away while setting up future attacks. Pretty nice IMO. 

Another requires a bloodied enemy to hit or miss you or an adjacent ally - it's inevitable that enemies will become bloodied, so again the situation is quite likely. Then make a basic attack or charge against the enemy, & daze them on a hit? Daze is rather potent, I think, and as an imm. reaction can really screw up a monster's plans. 

The last requires an enemy to move or shift within 2 of you - again, not unlikely to occur in the span of an encounter. As another imm. reaction, this power is really versatile too - an enemy moves adjacent to you? Shift away before he attacks! An enemy moves away from you? Shift toward them! Or not! Lots of possibilities with this one. Ignoring their cover & concealment, as well as the extra 1d6 damage is even more gravy!

I wonder what feats will be written up to improve these powers? Hmmmm...



> I might want to make a Wilden Shaman at some point though.



Or a druid!


----------



## Baron Opal (Apr 24, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Dude. I just imagined an Ooze-based race.





Dralasites for the win!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 24, 2009)

The race has a few nice twists, I like the idea of the nature aspect chosen affecting the personality. 

Someone noticed that they are venturing further off from the "traditional" fantasy races, but I wonder which races are still left there? Aren't the traditional ones Dwarves, Elves, Halfling and Gnomes? Maybe Giants? 


The best thing in the article for me was the mention of the Far Realms. Apparently, a theme in the PHB 3 will be the Far Realms creeping up on the world. Like that. Especially since I am considering to take my online campaign into that direction, too. (Though whether it will be out soon enough remains to be seen.)
So, does this help anyone to guess what the campaign next year might be? In which campaign setting is the Far Realm likely to be prevalent and the most important threat? Dark Sun?


----------



## Kishin (Apr 24, 2009)

There are Killoren in my campaign setting (albeit NPCs, and the principal game in that setting is still 3.5E), so its good to see them return in 4E form. I've always like them.



			
				ferratus said:
			
		

> I'd like to see my Dromites come back myself.  They were human enough to be easy to insert in a campaign world, but the insect flavor made them fantastical as well.




So would I. Dromites were awesome, I say. Toss them in the PHB3.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Apr 24, 2009)

I like the name Killoren better, even if this was a race I ignored back when they first appeared.  Another problem with the name Wilden is it's too close to the even more forgettable Planar Handbook race, the Wildren.  

If there's one change they should do to match the thematics of this race better, is to have the defense bonus changeable and tied to whatever aspect of nature they choose for the day.


----------



## Mentat55 (Apr 24, 2009)

What intrigues me is that this is a Playtest article.  Perhaps they want us to run the encounter power(s) through their paces?  Or maybe they are trying to gauge interest / popularity of this race?  Or maybe they want feedback on the fluff more than the crunch?

I just think that it is interesting.  And I might try to convince a player in my new "primal" campaign to give a wilden a spin.


----------



## Trolls (Apr 24, 2009)

I'm pretty unimpressed by the whole thing. I was expecting something mechanically distinct, something that would make the race worthy of a playtest article. The only distinct parts of the wilden mechanics are the swapping aspects, but we've seen similar mechanics with the genasi and drow anyway.
It's not that the wilden are a bad race, the concept is fairly cool, but I was hoping for so much more. Oh well, can't win 'em all!


----------



## CelticMutt (Apr 24, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> The best thing in the article for me was the mention of the Far Realms. Apparently, a theme in the PHB 3 will be the Far Realms creeping up on the world. Like that. Especially since I am considering to take my online campaign into that direction, too. (Though whether it will be out soon enough remains to be seen.)
> So, does this help anyone to guess what the campaign next year might be? In which campaign setting is the Far Realm likely to be prevalent and the most important threat? Dark Sun?




Well, I know there were Dark Sun adventure modules involving the Githyanki, and very often where the Githyanki go the Mind Flayers have been.  And there was a psionic humanoid worm race called something like Psulon or Psulorn or something that were essentially aberrant invaders from another dimension.  And Defiling magic could easily be linked to the corrupting influence of the Far Realms imo.

So I'd say there are definite possiblities to linking Dark Sun to Far Realms invaders/corruption.


Edit:  Ok, after spending half an hour looking up evidence, I have this - Githyanki were called Gith and were "reptilian," and possibly didn't have Mind Flayer connections in Dark Sun.  But new edition, new fluff.  And the worm guys were Psurlons.  Here's a picutre I found that's apparently from the 3.x MM2:  http://www.iwozhere.com/SRD/images/88268_620_102.jpg


----------



## Nymrohd (Apr 24, 2009)

Killoren were a big part of my 3E homebrew which is slowly getting converted to 4E (about the same speed as the campaign my players are running there is expanding). I was planning to write them up if needed but it seems someone beat me to it Still I don't get why they need a Playtest. Cool guys, love to have them but this is more of a preview article to me. The somewhat variable mechanics are hardly complex enough that the race needs to be playtested for the next 4-6 months till the PHB3 goes to print.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 24, 2009)

Nymrohd said:


> Killoren were a big part of my 3E homebrew which is slowly getting converted to 4E (about the same speed as the campaign my players are running there is expanding). I was planning to write them up if needed but it seems someone beat me to it Still I don't get why they need a Playtest. Cool guys, love to have them but this is more of a preview article to me. The somewhat variable mechanics are hardly complex enough that the race needs to be playtested for the next 4-6 months till the PHB3 goes to print.




Playtest don't just have to be about how a game feature is "breaking" the game. 

It might also be important to figure out whether the game feature is used at all. For example, do people really change the ability around? Or do they always use the same one? Is one of them overall more powerful and thus the choice is not meaningful? How class dependent is this? Are people happy if they get to switch a lot or are they happy if they always stick to the "best" for their character/class/role?


----------



## Justin D. Jacobson (Apr 24, 2009)

That was my thought. I tmight be as simple as them running this style up the flagpole as opposed to, say, the two flavors of shifter.


----------



## Nai_Calus (Apr 24, 2009)

I put french dressing on them and make a salad.

Nevermind tree-hugging elves, these guys *are* the trees.

Seriously though, it's interesting enough, though I'd drop the 'we' thing since in practice it would merely be annoying. Dunno that I'd actually play one though. If I want to be weird and fey I can just play an Eladrin or a Gnome.


----------



## Felon (Apr 24, 2009)

Hmm. A chance to play a carrot? I might have to finally spring for a DDI account.

"Wilden" is a terrible name though.


----------



## Nymrohd (Apr 24, 2009)

Yeah I really don't get why they thought Wilden was a better name than killoren. Also I give them a free pass to reprint the killoren art from Races of the Wild. I loved that piece (and they will end up having something reprinted in PHB3 anyway so it might as well be that?)


----------



## Nebulous (Apr 24, 2009)

Nymrohd said:


> Yeah I really don't get why they thought Wilden was a better name than killoren. Also I give them a free pass to reprint the killoren art from Races of the Wild. I loved that piece (and they will end up having something reprinted in PHB3 anyway so it might as well be that?)




Would they change the name back to killoren if the playtest feedback was generally negative about "wilden".  Which, i agree, is a totally sucky name.


----------



## Nymrohd (Apr 24, 2009)

I think they would. I mean it is a playtest so it is not set in stone and they have been quite responsive to playtest reports. A race should be expected to have some reports on the fluff right? We should push for Killoren (and make polls!).


----------



## Estlor (Apr 24, 2009)

Hmm... that's kind of what I expected, but not really.  I figured if it was something "new" it would be totally off the wall.

So, does this give us any hints as to what power source besides ki we'll see in the PHB3?  Elemental maybe?  That's kind of a stretch since Elemental != Nature in this edition, and _especially_ != Feywild.


----------



## Felon (Apr 24, 2009)

Nymrohd said:


> I think they would. I mean it is a playtest so it is not set in stone and they have been quite responsive to playtest reports.



Perhaps. OTOH, somehow "deva" made it through the design process when "aasimar" was fine to begin with.


----------



## Klaus (Apr 24, 2009)

1. It's still a playtest, so those who want the name to revert back to Killoren should make themselves hear through feedback.

2. While the sketches look a bit "alien", there's nothing to stop one from envisioning the wilden/killoren as a "green man" type of creature, lifted straight from Medieval imagery:


----------



## hong (Apr 24, 2009)

Felon said:


> Perhaps. OTOH, somehow "deva" made it through the design process when "aasimar" was fine to begin with.



Deva is an actual word in addition to being a preexisting D&D monster. The Dragon writeup on deva ecology also draws heavily on real-world devae and the religious/philosophical traditions from which they arise for inspiration.

Aasimar OTOH is two letters away from ass smear.


----------



## Barastrondo (Apr 24, 2009)

I wonder what the public reaction would have been if they'd reserved the name "dryad" for these guys.


----------



## Festivus (Apr 24, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Stuff like this definitely won't make me buy PHB3. It's just too far away from the traditional fantasy game I want to play. But I think it's fair enough that WotC explore that avenue, since quite a few seem interested in "weird" races and they (WotC) have already covered my needs for races.




My first thought was as yours, not something I was looking for.  But then it's taken me several years and an edition to like warforged as a race so it could grow on me, so who knows, I might change my mind before it hits shelves in a year.


----------



## The_Fan (Apr 24, 2009)

I honestly had to download a copy of races of the wild (PIRACY!) just to refresh my memory on what the Killoren were. They had less traction in my mind than _hadozee_, fer cryin' out loud. This new writeup and new name does very little to alleviate this.

Also, identical racial stat bonuses to a dwarf are stepping on the poor dwarf's toes, and the bonus to one defense of choice only hurts the dwarf even more. The racial powers are also in my opinion a bit too good. They're like enhanced versions of other racial powers or class features (the Ancients power in particular is stepping on Eladrin toes).

I'm generally inclined to look at things in a half-full light, but this is pretty disappointing. Hopefully it will get better fluff and some toned down racial powers in the final version. Or, alternately, maybe I'm just feeling extra grumpy today.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 24, 2009)

Barastrondo said:


> I wonder what the public reaction would have been if they'd reserved the name "dryad" for these guys.




Hmm.

I think Dryad could work in general, but not for this combination of racial features, I think. 

I am neither a fan of Killoren or Wilden as a name... We'll see. Names are always hard.


----------



## hong (Apr 24, 2009)

Guild Wars 2 will use "sylvari"....


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 24, 2009)

KILLoren 

Shh... it's subliminal.


----------



## Hexmage-EN (Apr 24, 2009)

I don't care for the "Voyage of the Ancients" power. The other two racial powers make sense to me, but I don't really understand what being able to teleport after hitting someone with a close attack or a blast has to do with being a wise plant creature.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 24, 2009)

I'd change the fluff text completely, but I've offered this race to someone interested in playing a shaman in my game. I like them! Well, I like the game powers, and I like their plant nature; I'm less excited about their "brand new race, fighting the far realms" fluff. That doesn't fit in well with where I see my campaigns going.


----------



## Verys Arkon (Apr 24, 2009)

I think James Wyatt is a Far Realm nut (see his campaign notes in Dungeon), and I see his thumb print clearly in the fluff here (though I don't know how much of a hand he actually had in its design).  Not that I mind!

As for the race itself, it fills a niche that other races don't quiet cover - even the eladrin ('high elves') or gnomes, which we've had forever, are not as Fey as the wilder...eh warden...I mean wilden.  Yeah, the name has got to go.

I'd like James or Robert (I know you guys are reading this!) to let us know what kinds of things they are looking for playtesting, unless they think mentioning specific things biases the process.


----------



## hong (Apr 24, 2009)

Also, "Wilden" was a kickass book by Henry David Thoreau.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Apr 24, 2009)

Belorin said:


> So lets see, one race from Races of Stone, one from Races of the Wild; I'm going to come right out and say the Illumians are in. If not PHB3, then PHB4.



Dude, I'm sorry to ruin it for you, but they killed these guys off in the Manual of the Planes. Completely wiped out. (Of course, there is a line about how they may be out there somewhere...)


The_Fan said:


> Also, identical racial stat bonuses to a dwarf are stepping on the poor dwarf's toes, and the bonus to one defense of choice only hurts the dwarf even more.



Except that nobody who wants to play a dwarf will instead want to play a plant-man.


> The racial powers are also in my opinion a bit too good. They're like enhanced versions of other racial powers or class features (the Ancients power in particular is stepping on Eladrin toes).



Really? Many powers are going to be similar to one another in 4E. The limitations on the encounter powers seem to be significant. An eladrin can teleport at will, not only in response to an attack. Assitionally, these powers should seem somewhat similar, as they both have the Feywild as their source.


> I'm generally inclined to look at things in a half-full light, but this is pretty disappointing. Hopefully it will get better fluff and some toned down racial powers in the final version. Or, alternately, maybe I'm just feeling extra grumpy today.



I've got a bad headache myself (and marking), so I'll go with extra grumpy.


----------



## Mengu (Apr 24, 2009)

How do we pronounce it? Wild-en or Will-den? Guessing it's the former, but the latter is much easier to pronounce, and it sounds less like a forced word, and more like a natural yet exotic word.

We likes the wilden. We incorporates the wilden quickly into our campaign. We already has many fey friends. We protects our friends, and serves them.


----------



## avin (Apr 24, 2009)

I really wish that, for every race, two optional fluffs were presented.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Apr 24, 2009)

Klaus said:


> 1. It's still a playtest, so those who want the name to revert back to Killoren should make themselves hear through feedback.
> 
> 2. While the sketches look a bit "alien", there's nothing to stop one from envisioning the wilden/killoren as a "green man" type of creature, lifted straight from Medieval imagery:



Nice.  I also thought of tying it in to the woodwose tales.  Although the woodwose is more of a sasquath type thing.



Mengu said:


> How do we pronounce it? Wild-en or Will-den? Guessing it's the former, but the latter is much easier to pronounce, and it sounds less like a forced word, and more like a natural yet exotic word.



I pronounce it more like "Wile-den."


----------



## Klaus (Apr 24, 2009)

HEY!

Woodwose? How's that for a name?

I'm also getting a vibe from the Elemental God from Hellboy II:


----------



## amysrevenge (Apr 24, 2009)

I like it, but would have hoped for some racial feats (and maybe a paragon class or two) like they did with warforged.  Without those it's not that much of a playtest.


----------



## Hexmage-EN (Apr 24, 2009)

Klaus said:


> HEY!
> 
> Woodwose? How's that for a name?




I like it better than Wilden or Killoren. 

How about just Wose?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 24, 2009)

Charwoman Gene said:


> KILLoren
> 
> Shh... it's subliminal.




What did Oren ever do to you to deserve such hat of no limit?


----------



## hong (Apr 24, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> What did Oren ever do to you to deserve such hat of no limit?



She must die. All of them must die.


----------



## Zaukrie (Apr 24, 2009)

I have read zero letters found in the print of this preview: but wilden?

That is a brutally uninspiring name. Terrible. Making up a word would be better. Just bad.


----------



## Hawke (Apr 24, 2009)

yeah the name is bad. Can we please stop having W-names for classes and races? 

I wanna see an Arborean race statted up.


----------



## avin (Apr 24, 2009)

One creature on CC or CC II looks very close to this monster.


----------



## Nymrohd (Apr 24, 2009)

And we very much needed a race that made natural guardian druids and actually had primal ties (cause right now dwarves are some of the best druids and shamans!).


----------



## Hexmage-EN (Apr 24, 2009)

Here's an idea: drop Hardy Form and make the racial Defense bonus dependent upon the aspect chosen. Aspect of the Destroyer gets a bonus to Fortitude, Aspect of the Hunter gets a bonus to Reflex, and Aspect of the Ancient gets a bonus to Will. 

That way changing aspects has more of an impact besides just determining which Encounter power you get to use.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 24, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> What did Oren ever do to you to deserve such hat of no limit?




Something about Mongols.

Actually Oren is the name of my Deva Avenger....


----------



## Elodan (Apr 24, 2009)

The race is a little out there, but I actually like them a lot (never looked at the core 3E race books).

The article seems more like a preview than a playtest though.


----------



## CelticMutt (Apr 24, 2009)

The_Fan said:


> Also, identical racial stat bonuses to a dwarf are stepping on the poor dwarf's toes, and the bonus to one defense of choice only hurts the dwarf even more. The racial powers are also in my opinion a bit too good. They're like enhanced versions of other racial powers or class features (the Ancients power in particular is stepping on Eladrin toes).




You do know that there's only like 15 total stat combos possible, right?  There will be more guys with Con/Wis as time goes on.  A specific race being the only one to have a particular combo is a sacred cow that is dead and deep fried.



Hexmage-EN said:


> Here's an idea: drop Hardy Form and make the racial Defense bonus dependent upon the aspect chosen. Aspect of the Destroyer gets a bonus to Fortitude, Aspect of the Hunter gets a bonus to Reflex, and Aspect of the Ancient gets a bonus to Will.
> 
> That way changing aspects has more of an impact besides just determining which Encounter power you get to use.




I agree with this.  I'd even go so far as to say that maybe they should get one other situational bonus for each Aspect that only works when in that Aspect.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 24, 2009)

Hexmage-EN said:


> Here's an idea: drop Hardy Form and make the racial Defense bonus dependent upon the aspect chosen. Aspect of the Destroyer gets a bonus to Fortitude, Aspect of the Hunter gets a bonus to Reflex, and Aspect of the Ancient gets a bonus to Will.
> 
> That way changing aspects has more of an impact besides just determining which Encounter power you get to use.



Interesting, but I'd argue against this. I'd prefer not to have to rejigger my defense numbers each time I take an extended rest. Not a huge deal, but it's one of those things I find annoying.


----------



## James McMurray (Apr 24, 2009)

amysrevenge said:


> I like it, but would have hoped for some racial feats (and maybe a paragon class or two) like they did with warforged.  Without those it's not that much of a playtest.




My thoughts exactly. Currently players who are looking to play one of these are likely to swap from Dwarf to Wilden. Having 0 racial feats makes it a really bad idea for any character who has dwarven feats.


----------



## TerraDave (Apr 24, 2009)

creative or just diminishing returns?



hmm.


----------



## Aristotle (Apr 24, 2009)

As a monster manual race... I love them. As a core race in the PHB? No... Just no.

It seems like there are still many better choices in the games' past. Oddities like this in the core make the sequalizing of the core appear unsustainable.


----------



## Klaus (Apr 24, 2009)

A quick review of the 3e splatbooks gives us:

- Goliaths <---- covered in PH2
- Stonechildren <---- covered by earth genasi
- Whisper Gnomes <---- covered by gnomes
- Raptoran
- Killoren <---- wilden playtest for PH3
- Gnolls <---- covered in Dragon Magazine
- Centaurs
- Catfolk <---- covered by razorclaw shifters in PH2
- Illumians
- Darfellans
- Hadozee
- Neanderthal <---- covered by half-orcs in PH2
- Uldra
- Dromites
- Githyaki
- Githzerai
- Thri-Kreen
- Half-Giants <---- covered by goliaths in PH2
- Elan
- Maenads
- Xeph


Any of these seem likely?


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (Apr 24, 2009)

I'll be completely honest, I don't understand what direction WotC is taking 4E. I don't necessarily dislike it, but I don't really like it either. Every new race that is being released makes the game resemble old Talislanta.

The Wilden is yet another odd addition to the bevy of strange races.

What are the core conceits behind the design direction of 4E? Not a lot of what I am seeing falls in line with the pre-4E guides. Is it meant to be all-inclusive? I thought they wanted to narrow down the feel and hammer out some positive focus in 4E, not design the game for people that like to play Futars.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Apr 24, 2009)

Yeah, it seems that we are leaving the land of "loads of humans who are either small, thin or wear Klingon costumes" and enter the realm of "strange, fantastic creatures as races." 

Of course, we are moving slowly: currently, some elves are wearing bark & moss skirts, but it seems D&D is getting better at strange & enticing fantasy. Who knows, perhaps PHB5 will contain never-seen races you can only comprehend while wearing special goggles. 

Message from me: moar! Bring it on!


----------



## Jack99 (Apr 24, 2009)

Festivus said:


> My first thought was as yours, not something I was looking for.  But then it's taken me several years and an edition to like warforged as a race so it could grow on me, so who knows, I might change my mind before it hits shelves in a year.




I still consider the warforged to be the great travesty of the prior edition.


----------



## 77IM (Apr 24, 2009)

Klaus said:


> - Darfellans



Isn't Dudefella a Darfellan?


 -- 77IM


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 24, 2009)

Already developed new fluff for my campaign settings:

They are fragments of the once powerful Spirits of Nature. Broken off they took their nature and formed a moving, humanoid form that could contain the pure elements of its spirit not just destroyed or gone insane.
They are humans and other races that have slowly become warped by nature. Slowly starting with growth, rot, etc. It rapidly evolves into its current form, the transformation also wrecks with their mind causing a new personality to form.
If they keep making unusual races that aren't traditional I will be quite, quite happy. I am still hoping for Thri-Keen, Elan and maybe, maybe if lucky a non-humanoid race.


----------



## Jhaelen (Apr 24, 2009)

hong said:


> Guild Wars 2 will use "sylvari"....



Well, they were called Sylvans in Dark Age of Camelot...

Anyway, I'm a bit disappointed it wasn't a preview of a Darksun-compatible race. At least a 4E version of the Killoren is better than a 4E version of the Raptorans. Killoren were the best race introduced in Races of the Wild, imho. 

I just don't think they had any traction at all, so I'm a bit surprised about seeing them return.


----------



## Stogoe (Apr 24, 2009)

Fallen Seraph said:


> They are based off the Killoren.



Woot!  The killoren was my favorite "Races Of" race.  I love that they're back.



chaotix42 said:


> I especially like the fact that you can change aspects & encounter powers when you rest. Nifty.




When I was idly statting up a homebrew killoren a while ago, that's exactly what I did, too.  I'm glad that they kept the changing Aspects part of the race, it was the best part.


----------



## Atreides (Apr 24, 2009)

Somewhat disappointed to not see the Illumian or the Thri-Kreen.

The Wilden are OK I suppose, just not my particular cup of tea - the name though?  Gots to go.


----------



## Stogoe (Apr 24, 2009)

Moniker said:


> What are the core conceits behind the design direction of 4E?



"Here are a bunch of things that are awesome/totally sweet!  Use them if you want!  Or not! Whatever!"

And I totally want to jettison elves completely in my games and use Wilden in their place.

Won't you please let me have my non-traditional fantasy, side by side with your traditional fantasy, so we can both have fun?  Thanks.


----------



## Dire Bare (Apr 24, 2009)

When I first saw the race title, and the fact this was going to be a nature race, I had horrible images of the wildren from 3e, the celestial dwarf-badgers.  But after reading it and discovering it was a reconcept of the killoren, I was very happy!  I loved the killorren race from 3e!

Overall, I'm very pleased with the 4e implentation of this race.  I also don't like the name wilden and would prefer killoren.  I don't like the art at all, even giving that it is black-and-white sketch work.  The look described in the article sounds good, but the artwork is too alien.  While I appreciate WotC is trying to push the fantasy envelope a bit, I don't think most players want to play "alien" characters . . . at least not in D&D.  The artwork from 3e's Races of the wild was not perfect, but a step in the right direction.  The poster above who suggested a "green man" look is also pointing in the right direction.  And, of course, comparing this race playtest to the warforged playtest . . . . a more "full" article with feats and other crunchy bits would have been much better.  Crunch-wise, I'm loving it!!!

For those who complain that the killoren, er, wilden, are too far away from the core ideas of D&D fantasy . . . what more traditional fantasy race concepts are left?  I can't think of any right now, but then again, it's late Friday at work and the weather outside of my window looks soooo nice . . . .


----------



## Vael (Apr 24, 2009)

I liked the Killoren, and I don't mind this new version ... except I prefer the old name. Powers seem a little finicky right now.

Overall, we would play a Wilden Druid ... but call ourselves Killoren.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Apr 25, 2009)

Count me as someone who rather liked Killoren in 3.5.

The name is horrible though.  4e names have been hit or (very) miss, and this is *so* very miss.  Come on guys, Wilden?  "What should we name it?"  "Something involving plants and wilderness"  "Wilderness?  Wilderness.  Wilder.  Wilden."  "That works.  Let's grab some beer."

Know what I want?  I want a race with a name that they give _themselves_.  Instead of Wilden, give them a cool sounding name that isn't immidiately connected to the concept, and then give the _name_ fluff, like "They name themselves after their god of war" or something like that.


----------



## Mephistopheles (Apr 25, 2009)

My reaction to this article was pretty mixed.

I like the core idea of the race, but I didn't much care for the background. It's a little ironic to see a generally negative response to the name of the race considering that the article, in reference to the 3rd Edition Killoren, mentions "the name in particular didn't strike anyone working on PH3 as especially compelling".

One minor nitpick with the fluff was that at one point it mentions individuality having no place in the lives of the Wilden, yet it goes on to list typical names. I understand that people want names for their characters, but it struck me as being at odds with the concept.

The Voyage of the Ancients racial power seems to indicate that the onslaught of teleportation powers will continue in PHB3, but I'll wait and see.

Overall it strikes me as an optional race from a supplement - such as Dragon - rather than a core race.



The_Fan said:


> Also, identical racial stat bonuses to a dwarf are stepping on the poor dwarf's toes, <snip>




This already happened with the Gnome and Tiefling, and the Elf and Razorclaw Shifter. It was bound to happen sooner or later in any case: with six attributes there are only so many ways to choose two of them.


----------



## Nai_Calus (Apr 25, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Know what I want?  I want a race with a name that they give _themselves_.  Instead of Wilden, give them a cool sounding name that isn't immidiately connected to the concept, and then give the _name_ fluff, like "They name themselves after their god of war" or something like that.




I now have this mental image of a race referring to themselves as the N'Tel'Quessir because the first people they ran into were FR Eladrin/Elves.

I imagine the elves would not be amused.

...I might have to use that someday now.


----------



## Remathilis (Apr 25, 2009)

I also like Killoren, considering we already had a wildren in 3.5. 

I mourn my planar baboon people


----------



## CelticMutt (Apr 25, 2009)

The Warforged article in Dragon isn't a Playtest, it's a full, official write-up.  Or at least that's what is was meant to be, before WotC decided they just had to change it and put it in the EPG.  But originally, it was official.


----------



## Dire Bare (Apr 25, 2009)

CelticMutt said:


> The Warforged article in Dragon isn't a Playtest, it's a full, official write-up.  Or at least that's what is was meant to be, before WotC decided they just had to change it and put it in the EPG.  But originally, it was official.




Yes and no.  The article, "Playing Warforged" was not labeled as a "playtest" article, but that was the general intent.  That article was so popular it basically convinced WotC to offer more playtests, basically created a recurring feature in the magazine.  The warforged race was always planned for the Eberron Player's Guide coming out this summer, it was not a change due to the popularity of the article.

And either way, it's always been "official"!!  Everything published in Dragon and Dungeon is official . . . but if it is labeled as a playtest, that just means it might change significantly between it's initial introduction and the later product it's scheduled to appear in.


----------



## Rechan (Apr 25, 2009)

Mephistopheles said:


> This already happened with the Gnome and Tiefling, and the Elf and Razorclaw Shifter. It was bound to happen sooner or later in any case: with six attributes there are only so many ways to choose two of them.



And yet oddly we are still missing some combos.

+2 Dex/Con 
+2 Con/Int
+2 Wis/Cha (Yes, I'm aware that's two of the same defense; now count the +2 Str/Con and +2 Int/Dex races). 

Personally I'd like another +2 Con/Cha race, just so Half-Elves aren't the only ones. 

But these days, I'm leaning towards saying the hell with fixed racial stat bonuses.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 25, 2009)

Rechan said:


> But these days, I'm leaning towards saying the hell with fixed racial stat bonuses.



I dunno, if I am to that extent. But I certainly don't see them as that important. I think Racial Features are a much more important aspect, I don't even look at the bonuses just the Features since that is what truly makes a race unique in a mechanical sense.


----------



## Rani (Apr 25, 2009)

Rechan said:


> And yet oddly we are still missing some combos.
> 
> +2 Dex/Con
> +2 Con/Int
> +2 Wis/Cha (Yes, I'm aware that's two of the same defense; now count the +2 Str/Con and +2 Int/Dex races) <snip>




Isn't the Gnoll dex/con?


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 25, 2009)

Cool, I called this one.  Love the Killoren. Not so crazy about the name Wildren, but since I'm not a 4e player, my opinion on such matters is academic.


----------



## Psikus (Apr 26, 2009)

amysrevenge said:


> I like it, but would have hoped for some racial feats (and maybe a paragon class or two) like they did with warforged.  Without those it's not that much of a playtest.






James McMurray said:


> My thoughts exactly. Currently players who are looking to play one of these are likely to swap from Dwarf to Wilden. Having 0 racial feats makes it a really bad idea for any character who has dwarven feats.




I also think that there should have been a few racial feats for the article to be an actual playtest. In case you're interested, I have made a few Wilden feats, which you can find on my blog.

Other than that, I liked the article. I'm not usually too keen on weird races, but I might end up playing one of these, eventually. After all, I can't think of a better fit for a primal class.


----------



## fireinthedust (Apr 26, 2009)

I don't like them.  I think they're overpowered in play:  stealth around, then strike from shadows.   Con-lock would be too good that way.  Not a big fan of the powers, too easy to trigger.

Also I haaaaaate the look.  This is too close to the goofy side of RPGs, like all the weird stuff that never gets used.  I mean, can any of you imagine these guys walking into a TAVERN at first level, looking for an adventure?

"Hi, I'm one of the Natural World's antibodies against a realm none of you know about that would make you go insane if you even thought about it.  Um, could I have an Ale?  I'm looking to go adventuring and find some magical items (because the world that hatched me as an Antibody didn't give me any kind of natural defences to handle what it wants me to fight).  Um, did I mention this is completely normal for you?" 

Like, yeah I get that it might be interesting.  But no, they're not plausible.

And where are the Modrons?  The Bariaur?  The Narnia animals with magic powers?  (oddly, I think a Tiger in magic plate that lobs fireballs would be more in-place than this guy in a fantasy setting.  I am comfortable with this).


----------



## rounser (Apr 26, 2009)

> "Hi, I'm one of the Natural World's antibodies against a realm none of you know about that would make you go insane if you even thought about it. Um, could I have an Ale? I'm looking to go adventuring and find some magical items (because the world that hatched me as an Antibody didn't give me any kind of natural defences to handle what it wants me to fight). Um, did I mention this is completely normal for you?"
> 
> Like, yeah I get that it might be interesting. But no, they're not plausible.



And ugly dragonpeople who breathe fire and can burn the tavern down, and teleporting elves who aren't even called elves who just shift from the bar to the table all day long _are_?  And the robots and the ramheads are regulars...if it's a tavern, then either it's the Star Wars Cantina, or everywhere is now like Sigil.

D&D's implied setting is IMO not in a safe pair of hands, here.  I'm surprised you didn't notice until just now.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Apr 26, 2009)

People always ask "Can you imagine *this* walking into a tavern looking for adventure?" as if it were a *good* thing to trot out that stupid, tired trope again and again and again and again and again for decades more.

_Viva_ something non-traditional, for goodness' sake.


----------



## rounser (Apr 26, 2009)

> Viva something non-traditional, for goodness' sake.



If it were optional splat, sure.  But it's as "core" as humans, and will be treated as such unless specifically banned.  Therein lies the rub.


----------



## Hammerhead (Apr 26, 2009)

Yeah, everything should just look human or get killed by angry mobs, if you ask me.


----------



## fireinthedust (Apr 26, 2009)

rounser said:


> And ugly dragonpeople who breathe fire and can burn the tavern down, and teleporting elves who aren't even called elves who just shift from the bar to the table all day long _are_?  And the robots and the ramheads are regulars...if it's a tavern, then either it's the Star Wars Cantina, or everywhere is now like Sigil.
> 
> D&D's implied setting is IMO not in a safe pair of hands, here.  I'm surprised you didn't notice until just now.





I'd argue that point, sure, but there is a BIIIIIIIIG difference between Warforged in Eberron and Wilden in POL.  

Warforged: introduced into the setting by a massive war.  They're the new technology.  They may have been made by the last human Empire.  They're relatively common, in Eberron.

Dragonborn:  ran an Empire back in the day.  Older than humans.  Like how the British were the power before America.  There are loads of them.  They're just a different type of "Common" race, like humans or halflings.

Tieflings:  Ran an Empire back in the day.  

Eladrin:  Travellers from their Feywild cities.  Ran an empire back in the day.

Halflings: ply the river trade, common sight.

Humans: most recent Empire attempt.  Also, primary source of D&D authors and 50% of the guests at GenCon.

Orcs/Halforcs: um, loads of them.

Genasi:  minor race, sure, but they have a history of city states and civiization.

Wilden:  Someone didn't clean the fridge.  Wilden grew out of this, as the answer of the Meatloaf to the threat of the Far Realm.  They do this best by not having any natural defences (claws, spells, etc.), relying instead on walking into taverns and joining mercenary groups.  As they are highly unlikely to be played in a long-term campaign whose scope will be to entirely rid the planes of the Far Realm incursions, the world is doomed.  FAIL!


I mean, can you imagine one of them wearing boots of striding and sprining?  Or a hat of disguise?  Bag of Tricks?  Magic Carpet?  Handy Haversack?  Chainmail or metal weaponry?  Why?  Because they're incongruous in their current form with most equipment in D&D.


----------



## rounser (Apr 26, 2009)

> I'd argue that point, sure, but there is a BIIIIIIIIG difference between Warforged in Eberron and Wilden in POL.



So warforged aren't going to make PHB?


----------



## rounser (Apr 26, 2009)

> Yeah, everything should just look human or get killed by angry mobs, if you ask me.



Definitely too much to ask, as it would resemble something vaguely medieval, and restore monsters to a status of being feared and exotic creatures.  I think you need to get with the program.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 26, 2009)

mhacdebhandia said:


> People always ask "Can you imagine *this* walking into a tavern looking for adventure?" as if it were a *good* thing to trot out that stupid, tired trope again and again and again and again and again for decades more.



Especially when the race is one that outright states isn't that common or that apparent in the normal World. So of course they wouldn't be in a tavern, they be something exotic which is part of the appeal.

I personally am completely gunhoe with exotic races being in the PHB, primarily since it means they will get just as much support as more mundane races.


----------



## fireinthedust (Apr 26, 2009)

rounser said:


> So warforged aren't going to make PHB?




Naw, they'll be in the Eberron PG.   They're already in the MM, and have Dragon articles helping them out.   Which means they're one step ahead of the Genasi (who I enjoy), who are in the FRPG and Dragon issues (but not yet an MM ).  

Tavern vs. Exotic:  I get that.  I like exotic (note: Genasi even if they're not common).   
*However* there is something to say about how a character can get hooked into an adventure.  Exotic races can do that sometimes, sure, but something about these guys just yells "we're going weird on this one".  I just don't see it working as a standard race.

Most of the adventures out there don't have Far Realm bits to them.  These creatures are specifically anti-far realm.  They're also without a culture in many cases.

I mean, anything can work, but you lose more story elements than you gain playing a character without any sort of ties to the world.  They just *pop* into existence and go fight monsters.

Do they know the Blacksmith?  Why save his daughter from Orcs?  Orcs are part of the natural way of things, too...


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 26, 2009)

fireinthedust said:


> Most of the adventures out there don't have Far Realm bits to them.  These creatures are specifically anti-far realm.  They're also without a culture in many cases.



Meh, if your adventures don't have Far Realm just refluff, this is needed anytime you don't run in the core-game setting (which does have heavy Far Realm intrusion and obviously from the statement in the playtest more to be seen as well). I have already come up with multiple refluffs, for the Wilden.

Your comment actually about lack of culture is a perfect avenue for them being part of different adventures. What if something happened and they were raised/taught by others, say Eladrin for instance.

I honestly think that any race can tie in, it is simply depends on the right story behind the character.


----------



## MrFilthyIke (Apr 26, 2009)

Moniker said:


> I don't necessarily dislike it, but I don't really like it either. Every new race that is being released makes the game resemble old Talislanta.




As a die-hard Talislanta fan, I approve of this message.


----------



## 77IM (Apr 26, 2009)

The more I think about it, the more I agree with this line of thinking:



fireinthedust said:


> Also I haaaaaate the look.  This is too close to the goofy side of RPGs, like all the weird stuff that never gets used.  I mean, can any of you imagine these guys walking into a TAVERN at first level, looking for an adventure?
> 
> "Hi, I'm one of the Natural World's antibodies against a realm none of you know about that would make you go insane if you even thought about it.  Um, could I have an Ale?  I'm looking to go adventuring and find some magical items (because the world that hatched me as an Antibody didn't give me any kind of natural defences to handle what it wants me to fight).  Um, did I mention this is completely normal for you?"




There's a word for races that are so exotic the common people don't know them.  It's "monster" (rawr!).  The wilden seem like they would make a fine monster race.  The dragonborn are numerous, civilized, and have a certain majestic air about them that gets them in.  The warforged and half-orcs and shifters and genasi and drow and such are "on the edge;" they are deliberately positioned as outcasts, mistrusted by society, but at least they are part of it.

I don't mind having Dragon articles for races like gnolls, minotaurs, wilden, etc.  (Heck, I am looking forward to the goblin and hobgoblin write-ups.  And give me my lizardfolk!)  Even if Dragon is "core" most people understand that the DM might not have read those articles and might have issues with them.  But if this race is in the PHB3, which many more people will read, somebody's going to show up at my table wanting to play them, and I'm in either the awkward position of squeezing them into the already-crowded campaign world, or the awkward position of telling a player "no."

 -- 77IM


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 26, 2009)

I have to agree with 77IM. It seems like a great monster race (rawr!). I have trouble seeing it as a PC race.


----------



## Klaus (Apr 26, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> I have to agree with 77IM. It seems like a great monster race (rawr!). I have trouble seeing it as a PC race.



Hmmm...

Let me take a stab at a plant-person design...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 26, 2009)

I don't know. Who would really get up in anger and fear of a plant? Don't you feel kinda ridicilous for that: "Let's grab the forks and pitches, there is a bush in town that looked funny at my daughter!"


----------



## rounser (Apr 26, 2009)

> Who would really get up in anger and fear of a plant?



LOL.  You're kidding, right?   Ever heard of _The Day of the Triffids_ or _The Invasion of the Body Snatchers_?

And that's just contemporary culture.  

Older editions have more creepy plant monsters than you can wave a branch at, from needlemen to yellow musk creepers, assassin vines to shambling mounds, black treants to vampire roses, killer trees to whipweed, mantraps to those weird far realm scorpion plants, archer bushes to wolves-in-sheep's-clothing etc etc etc.

The true D&D milieu is thick with the things.  Yes, run from or lynch the freaking plant monsters if they start ambulating, normal plants don't do that.


----------



## Klaus (Apr 26, 2009)

Soylent Green is Wilden?


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Apr 26, 2009)

Rounser, i highly doubt that these guys are thought as a player race for what you call the "true D&D milieu." However, for a game of "invasion tentacles from Far Away are beaten back by teh teleporting Eladrin elite and their newborn plantskin allies" they are a perfect fit. Strangely, exactly that is currently happening in some of my POLish forests. 

And thats what i want - i want fantastic races galore, to broaden my worldbuilding, not the next slightly different elf-xerox ("Elf? No, we´re alfs, thats what we´re called. We are masters of arcane magic with a somewhat altered spell selection, get *idiotic new weapon proficiency* as a bonus feat and contemplate our mystical power while frolicking aloof.")


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 26, 2009)

Races are a strange beast.

WotC seems to be treating them like classes, which isn't the smartest idea. Classes are more modular: introduce a new class, and your character can then multiclass (assuming there's multiclass feats?) pretty quickly, gaining its powers. 

Introduce a new race, and you are saying: "Time for a new character!" You can't retrain yourself as a killoren, or as a gnome. It's one of the few immutable parts of your character sheet in 4e. 

So they're less easily usable; you need fewer races than classes in the game.

What you do sort of need is a way to turn any creature into a PC race. Some people like the standard fantasy milieu, some people wanna play beholders and sentient squid. You will never be able to anticipate the races people actually want vs. the ones who will never be used. The most efficient solution is to make creatures easily convertible between the DM's side of the screen and the player's. 3e tried to do that, but didn't do so great of a job. 4e has abandoned that idea, and so needs to play the odds a bit more. As they run out of races with significant game history, they're going to wander more and more into the realm of "why should I care?"

A new race only adds to an ongoing game a cast of NPC's and a potential race for new/dead PC's or re-started campaigns. In 4e, the weight is more on the latter, since NPC's don't need stats, and player stats can't be used as combat stats. Each new race says "Start a new game with me!" Of course, given the duration of most D&D campaigns (and the reasons they fall apart), and the rarity of true death (especially in 4e), they aren't even very useful for that. I suppose it allows characters to "retire?"

People are saying that the killoren sounds more like a monster but, really, almost any new race is going to be pretty monstrous. Heck, the dragonborn, and the eladrin are pretty monstrous, as-written. 

A lot of the time, when a race is seen as a "monster," the DM usually means that they aren't mundane enough -- a lot of DMs in this thread don't want killoren wandering around their cities, or farming the fields of their town. It's important, usually, to have a PC race capable of doing mundane things: it makes the adventurers of the race more exceptional. Human adventurers are awesome because most humans are dirt-farmers. Killoren adventurers might not be so awesome, compared to other killoren. 

4e, I think, has difficulty making anything mundane (similar to 3e before it). It's intentional, but it also works against the goal of providing new PC races -- a goal which, as I pointed out above, has limited returns in the first place.

I like weird races, and the race itself certainly has a place in my world, but  I'm not holding my breath for it ever to be actually used, unless maybe I get a chance to play.


----------



## rounser (Apr 26, 2009)

> ("Elf? No, we´re alfs, thats what we´re called. We are masters of arcane magic with a somewhat altered spell selection, get *idiotic new weapon proficiency* as a bonus feat and contemplate our mystical power while frolicking aloof.")



Another 4Eism.  You've got that in eladrin, no other edition is afflicted with this elf/alf/eladrin stuff, because of subraces, so you could still call an elf variant an elf.  It's only your own game that you're mocking, there.


----------



## RefinedBean (Apr 26, 2009)

rounser said:


> Another 4Eism.  You've got that in eladrin, no other edition is afflicted with this elf/alf/eladrin stuff, because of subraces, so you could still call an elf variant an elf.  It's only your own game that you're mocking, there.




Haven't played much 3rd ed Faerun, have ya?  

I'm on record as hating the Eladrin, but I see why they exist, there was more than enough room for both Eladrin and Elves.  Otherwise, you have to wonder why forest elves are getting a +2 to Int, when they honestly couldn't care less about book learnin'.

As for the topic at hand, it's a PHB3 race.  They may as well throw in some "crazier" races that people can use or not use at their leisure.

Frankly, if a village in a typical D&D world are going to turn away adventurers on appearance alone, they probably deserve to have their homes burned down by a dragon.


----------



## CelticMutt (Apr 26, 2009)

Oh noes!  How dare WotC want to actually give us options!  How dare WotC want to get away from the tired old Tolkien cliches, and bring in more mythology/fairy tales!  Those big ole meanies!

Seriously, I'm disappointed it's not a better race, like the Thri-kreen like I had been hoping, but they're not bad just because they're different, m'kay?  Would you guys have been complaining this much if it had been the Thri-kreen?  

I mean c'mon, big ole scary insect people versus plant people, right?  Nevermind that they have a history stretching back furhter than the Dragonborn and were a common sight in Dark Sun cities.

Oh wait, you mean just because their fluff states they have a shared history with the other races, that makes it all better?  Then change the fluff for the Wilden if their existence pains you that much.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Apr 26, 2009)

rounser said:


> Another 4Eism.  You've got that in eladrin, no other edition is afflicted with this elf/alf/eladrin stuff, because of subraces, so you could still call an elf variant an elf.  It's only your own game that you're mocking, there.




I wasnt mocking anything. I want fantasy races that are fantastic, not retreads - no FR subraces, no "look, we´re elves with dark skin - guess our alignment." It seems you cannot approach this subject without edition-warring, though.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 26, 2009)

> It seems you cannot approach this subject without edition-warring, though.




Which is weird, since 3e was the edition that gave us fiendish half-golem anthropormorphic squirrel wearbear bard/barbarian/psionicisits. 

I think ronseur's point is more that 4e hasn't dodged the "seven different flavors of elf" problem. It's still there, though really, eladrin and drow and elves and half-elves are pretty mechanically distinct, even if they're conceptually kind of running together.

I'm well on record as liking weird races; I would've probably liked thri-kreen MORE, but that's probably just because they're weirder.  my only wonderment comes from adding a lot of races in these PHB's. Races are of such limited usefulness that they should have no real excuse to be scraping the bottom of the barrel with them, like it kind of seems they're doing here. If a race isn't stellar, already equipped with a lot of cool character baggage, or so narrowly focused that only a handful of campaigns will ever use them, we don't need it. Use the pagespace on something else.

People who want only Tolkeinesque races kind of confuse me because, in that case, you already HAVE all the races you need/want. What else can they give you?


----------



## Shroomy (Apr 26, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'm well on record as liking weird races; I would've probably liked thri-kreen MORE, but that's probably just because they're weirder.  my only wonderment comes from adding a lot of races in these PHB's. Races are of such limited usefulness that they should have no real excuse to be scraping the bottom of the barrel with them, like it kind of seems they're doing here. If a race isn't stellar, already equipped with a lot of cool character baggage, or so narrowly focused that only a handful of campaigns will ever use them, we don't need it. Use the pagespace on something else.
> 
> People who want only Tolkeinesque races kind of confuse me because, in that case, you already HAVE all the races you need/want. What else can they give you?




With the expansion of racial feats and now that racial PPs are becoming more and more prominent, I'm not sure if I would still characterize races as being of "limited usefulness."  I also think you meant importance, since the abilities granted by your characer's race are useful, but in the first six months of 4e, once you've made your selection, they really didn't have much impact beyond that initial choice.

IMO, we're at the point in the edition where pretty much all of the classic D&D races have been covered except those associated with a particular power source (i.e. the traditional psionic and oriental adventure races).  That leaves WoTC with the choice of releasing less races in future books or attempting to find something with traction (like the 4e version of the shadar-kai, IMO, I think they have "traction").  Personally, I think that this playtest was a trial balloon to gauge general interest in the non-traditional races (not just the wilden), especially those with roots in earlier editions.  The reaction will guide them going forward.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 26, 2009)

Klaus said:


> Hmmm...
> 
> Let me take a stab at a plant-person design...



Honestly, that might make the difference for me.


----------



## Jack99 (Apr 27, 2009)

Shroomy said:


> IMO, we're at the point in the edition where pretty much all of the classic D&D races have been covered except those associated with a particular power source (i.e. the traditional psionic and oriental adventure races). That leaves WoTC with the choice of releasing less races in future books or attempting to find something with traction (like the 4e version of the shadar-kai, IMO, I think they have "traction"). Personally, I think that this playtest was a trial balloon to gauge general interest in the non-traditional races (not just the wilden), especially those with roots in earlier editions. The reaction will guide them going forward.




I think you are quite right.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 27, 2009)

> With the expansion of racial feats and now that racial PPs are becoming more and more prominent, I'm not sure if I would still characterize races as being of "limited usefulness." I also think you meant importance, since the abilities granted by your characer's race are useful, but in the first six months of 4e, once you've made your selection, they really didn't have much impact beyond that initial choice.




No, I meant "usefulness." Having a lot of different races has much faster diminishing returns for the game as a whole than having a lot of diffferent...almost anything else.  At the table, you use maybe six PC races over the course of two years or so, possibly up to ten if you have a high rate of new players, or retiring or dead characters, or PC's who never use a race more than once or something. More races don't add much to the game -- they are not useful in the most literal sense of not being used very much in actual play. 

In 3e, this was somewhat mitigated by NPC/PC transparency: the race was ALSO a kit to build NPC encounters with, in addition to being a resource for a player. But in 4e, there is no transparency, so the existence of this race doesn't really give you any NPC's -- just PC's. If your players aren't using it, it's effectively wasted page space, and even the most diverse group of players won't use more than a fistfull of races over, heck, the entire life of 4e. 

New races are not very useful to the game (mostly due to their limited impact). 



> IMO, we're at the point in the edition where pretty much all of the classic D&D races have been covered except those associated with a particular power source (i.e. the traditional psionic and oriental adventure races). That leaves WoTC with the choice of releasing less races in future books or attempting to find something with traction (like the 4e version of the shadar-kai, IMO, I think they have "traction"). Personally, I think that this playtest was a trial balloon to gauge general interest in the non-traditional races (not just the wilden), especially those with roots in earlier editions. The reaction will guide them going forward.




Their playtests haven't been anything of THAT sort at all, from what I've seen. But laying that aside, releasing fewer races would probably be the smart thing to do, because you don't need very many races, even in 10 years of playing D&D. The races they do release in the future should be all killer: deep races, rather than a broad selection of many races. And they can have "monster manual" races that give DM's something when they also give PC's something.


----------



## avin (Apr 27, 2009)

The plant race can go on to PHB3. I'm fine with it. 

If you don't like the race just don't play it or don't allow it on your games.

More is better.


----------



## Stogoe (Apr 27, 2009)

mhacdebhandia said:


> People always ask "Can you imagine *this* walking into a tavern looking for adventure?" as if it were a *good* thing to trot out that stupid, tired trope again and again and again and again and again for decades more.
> 
> _Viva_ something non-traditional, for goodness' sake.



I completely agree.  Not all of us are clamoring to replay LotR over and over and over.



rounser said:


> If it were optional splat, sure. But it's as "core" as humans, and will be treated as such unless specifically banned.



I don't understand this mindest at all.  *Everything is optional,* unless you're forced to play RPGA for some reason.  If you and your group disagree about what's cool, that's a problem inside your group and not with the system.


----------



## Klaus (Apr 27, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> Honestly, that might make the difference for me.



Oh, you smooth you!



Time to think out loud. Let's look at the mechanics for the race:

- It's a +2 Con +2 Wis, Medium race. This suggests a sturdy, serene look, rather than a whimsical, flexible look. They even have an ability called Hardy Form, which seems to hammer down this notion. More like tree bark than leaves and vines.

- Bonuses to Nature and Stealth. Nature is a given. Stealth gives us something to work with. They're sturdy, but can hide pretty well. Camouflage? Or maybe they don't fidget and move like animals, but can remain motionless like plants? This may add "cautious" to the "sturdy, serene" description.

- The 3 encounter powers are very un-plant-like. Ancients can be worked in through the old memories of trees, but Destroyer and Hunter? I'm seeing this race as embodiments of more than just plant life, but of the whole of nature. Maybe an amalgam of these aspects gave birth to the race? These certainly won't be mini-treants...

Let's run down a list of possible things to add to the race to make them look distinct from other races:
- No nose? As plant-creatures, perhaps they breathe through their leaves?
- Less digits? Dragonborn already have the 3 fingers + thumb hand. Maybe 2 fingers + thumb, like Nightcrawler?
- Root-like feet? Must look at 4e Dryad to avoid making it too much like them.
- Large eyes? Lateral eyes (like a herbivore)?
- Knotty elbows and knees?
- Thorny protusions on shoulders and forearms?

Color palette:
- Green is so obvious, I'm rather wanting to downplay it.
- Brown is good for bark tones, but there are many trees with grayish/white trunks, like beech, birch or white oak. The latter seems specially significant, being associated with strength and endurance in several cultures. Plus two Subgeneri of oak are called Quercus and Cerris, which could be good starting points for a racial name (Quercuns? Cerritians?).
- Yellow and Red. Several plants have colorful leaves, sometimes even if differenet shades running through a single leaf. Hmm... Green and Red might make a good contrast...

Avoid making the race look like:
- Swamp Thing
- Man-Thing
- Poison Ivy
- 4e Dryad
- Treebeard's cousins, twice removed


----------



## 77IM (Apr 27, 2009)

*What happened to Rule 0?*



Stogoe said:


> I don't understand this mindest at all.  *Everything is optional,* unless you're forced to play RPGA for some reason.  If you and your group disagree about what's cool, that's a problem inside your group and not with the system.




The rules create a set of _shared expectations_.  People expect D&D to contain, for example, elves, encounter powers, and Erathis, because they spent $30 on a book that told them that was what to expect.  _Obviously_ the DM can ban things, but at the risk of alienating players -- and that's where the problem arises.

There used to be the idea of "core" rules -- things you could reasonably rely on, like the PHB races and classes and spells and such.  DMs had to specifically ban these, or else you could expect to see them.  Then there were "optional" rules -- variant races, classes, and splatbooks, that required the DM's permission.  This is how they managed the shared expectations:  core stuff was quintessentially D&D so you could probably count on it, and optional stuff might be available, but might not, so check with the DM.

4E has done away with this distinction.  They are trying to position everything as core, which is the equivalent of saying, nothing is optional.  The most blatant example of this is the chapter on character creation.  You may recall from 3E that step 0 of creating a character was to check with the DM to see if he had any setting-specific do's and don't's.  Looking through the 4E chapter on creating a character, _it doesn't even mention the idea of consulting with the DM_ on anything other than alignment.  (I'm not trying to start a 3E vs 4E edition war -- I'm just criticizing a particular WotC policy of 4E.)


I am all in favor of plant-people as an _explicitly_ optional race.  I guess my complaint is really not with the wilden but with the 4E "everything is core" policy, because it gives players an expectation that the DM might not want to fulfill.  I'm not sure I want to figure out how to work wilden into my setting (it was hard enough squeezing goliaths and devas in there last month), but I also don't want to say "no" to the player who bought PHB3 and expects to play one.  It's much easier to say "no" when the races is labeled as optional, because the player's expectations were not as strong.

 -- 77IM


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 27, 2009)

77IM said:


> I am all in favor of plant-people as an _explicitly_ optional race.  I guess my complaint is really not with the wilden but with the 4E "everything is core" policy, because it gives players an expectation that the DM might not want to fulfill.  I'm not sure I want to figure out how to work wilden into my setting (it was hard enough squeezing goliaths and devas in there last month), but I also don't want to say "no" to the player who bought PHB3 and expects to play one.  It's much easier to say "no" when the races is labeled as optional, because the player's expectations were not as strong.



See, I find that as a good thing, since then "core" isn't an excuse. It means that the player and DM have to both discuss what they wish out of the game, including stuff like what races there is, how they may be refluffed, etc.


----------



## rounser (Apr 27, 2009)

> See, I find that as a good thing, since then "core" isn't an excuse. It means that the player and DM have to both discuss what they wish out of the game, including stuff like what races there is, how they may be refluffed, etc.



No, core is an excuse still, just in the opposite direction - "It's core, allow it."  And the fluff attached is specific enough to be hostile to worldbuilding.  On one hand we have specific fluff removed from monsters, where it does no harm, and attached to PC races, where "tieflings had an empire" is a restriction enough to require ignoring in countless worlds.  It's bizarre.


----------



## Klaus (Apr 27, 2009)

First sketch time! I did a sketch next to a human and a dwarf to gauge how jarring it's look next to traditional races (and also it is halfway between them in size).

The hunched posture adds to the "cautious" demeanor. The overall body shape came from the Golden Lion Tamarin. I figure, if Nature would create an ambulatory plant race, it'd shape it after an animal of the wild, not after a civilized race. Hence the long arms and shorter legs, plus the "mane" of leaves.

Not too sure about the big eyes, gives it a fishy look. Big eyes make a character look younger/curious/cute. Since I'm aiming for wise/serene, I'll go with smaller eyes. They'll look good on a Green Man face (still no nose, but that's not set in stone... er, wood.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 27, 2009)

Claudio, it does look a little bit like Ookla.


----------



## Klaus (Apr 27, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> Claudio, it does look a little bit like Ookla.



The next question is: is that a good thing or a bad thing?

'Cause D&D could really use Ookla The Mok...


----------



## fireinthedust (Apr 27, 2009)

Hey, I never said I didn't like exotic races.   I'm a fan, and I enjoy playing the "creation of science gone mad" unique PC.

I just don't like the Wilden's look or fluff.


1)   They're not Fey:   they're plant people, that's PRIMAL.  Fey are Redcaps, Pixies, Nymphs, Satyrs, Eladrin, Drow, Fomorians, whatever.  They're not plant people like the Wilden.  

2)  They don't wear clothes:  why would they dungeon crawl to get equipment?  

3)   I can see them as a one-time race or creation.  Not as a long-term campaign-setting race.   ie: Optional.

4)   Driads/Nymphs would be a great FeyPC race for plant people.  Mini-treants, another example.   Lizard-like plant avengers vs. Cthulhu?    wtf?   How does that in any way compare or relate to the D&D level of Driads?   
     I mean, most of the players I get out are female; having a female race would be sweet.


----------



## tsadkiel (Apr 27, 2009)

I like the notion of a plant race, but the Venus Flytrap heads don't really do it for me.  I'd prefer a look more like Alluria publishing's oakling, or Klaus's version.  I also wouldn't mind if they looked like this:


----------



## RefinedBean (Apr 27, 2009)

rounser said:


> No, core is an excuse still, just in the opposite direction - "It's core, allow it."  And the fluff attached is specific enough to be hostile to worldbuilding.  On one hand we have specific fluff removed from monsters, where it does no harm, and attached to PC races, where "tieflings had an empire" is a restriction enough to require ignoring in countless worlds.  It's bizarre.




Hostile?  HOSTILE to worldbuilding.  C'mon, really?  That's a harsh term.  What if your world doesn't have mountains?  Are Dwarves "hostile" to worldbuilding, then?

They gave PC races their own pre-made fluff so that people could play them out of the box.  A giant portion of groups are just going to change everything anyway, so what's the big deal?

Wilden don't make sense?  Don't use 'em.  Some people might.  It's the PHB3, things are bound to get a bit wacky.  I fail to see an issue here.


----------



## rounser (Apr 27, 2009)

> Hostile? HOSTILE to worldbuilding. C'mon, really? That's a harsh term.



Absolutely.  You've got non-optional wacky PC races coming out every year that you're supposed to adapt your world to, of course it's hostile to worldbuilders.  Yes, you can ban things, you can also add things to fix the system, but that doesn't get around that as written, the game is a step backwards for worldbuilding purposes.


> What if your world doesn't have mountains? Are Dwarves "hostile" to worldbuilding, then?



If your world doesn't have mountains, you're clearly breaking a lot of assumptions.  It's on an entirely different level to saying tieflings and dragonboobs have never had an empire.


----------



## Dire Bare (Apr 27, 2009)

fireinthedust said:


> 1)   They're not Fey:   they're plant people, that's PRIMAL.  Fey are Redcaps, Pixies, Nymphs, Satyrs, Eladrin, Drow, Fomorians, whatever.  They're not plant people like the Wilden.



  Fey tend to correlate to the Arcane power source, of course, but there's nothing in the rules or fluff that lock that down.  I have no problem with a fey creature preferring the Primal power source.  However, I don't see how a plant person is automatically not fey and automatically primal in concept.  Later down you mention a treant-style race?  How is that all that different?  Besides, the "green man" concept seems pretty fey to me . . .



> 2)  They don't wear clothes:  why would they dungeon crawl to get equipment?



  Do you need clothes to wield a sword?  If you're a toughie, you can wield just about any equipment without the need for clothes.  Armor would be the big exception.  Did the article actually say they don't wear clothes?!?!  I don't remember this, but I'm too lazy to go back and reread right now.



> 4)   Driads/Nymphs would be a great FeyPC race for plant people.  Mini-treants, another example.   Lizard-like plant avengers vs. Cthulhu?    wtf?   How does that in any way compare or relate to the D&D level of Driads?  I mean, most of the players I get out are female; having a female race would be sweet.



  I don't care for the artwork shown so far for the Wilden, but lizard-like?  I do like the idea of a dryad-type of fey PC race, but in D&D lore dryads are already something quite different . . . and with some different artwork, the Wilden actually fit this bill pretty closely IMO.


----------



## RefinedBean (Apr 27, 2009)

rounser said:


> Absolutely.  You've got non-optional wacky PC races coming out every year that you're supposed to adapt your world to, of course it's hostile to worldbuilders.  Yes, you can ban things, you can also add things to fix the system, but that doesn't get around that as written, the game is a step backwards for worldbuilding purposes.




This is opinion, stated as fact.  Even if Wilden are "core," it's a GAME.  The players and DM figure out what's going to be the best way to have fun, and do so.

What is it about 4E that makes it harder to build a fantasy world?  Is it some specific rule I'm missing?  It seems like worldbuilding has been the same in every edition I've played (3.0, 3.5, 4E).


----------



## Dire Bare (Apr 27, 2009)

rounser said:


> Absolutely.  You've got non-optional wacky PC races coming out every year that you're supposed to adapt your world to, of course it's hostile to worldbuilders.  Yes, you can ban things, you can also add things to fix the system, but that doesn't get around that as written, the game is a step backwards for worldbuilding purposes.




I have a hard time seeing anything in 4e (or any version of D&D) "hostile" to world-building.  It's guarunteed that at some point or other, some official "piece" of D&D lore is published that you won't like.  Easy fix is not to use it.  Or to change it to suit your tastes.

It goes back to an open GM style which encourages the DM to say "yes" and a closed GM style which encourages the DM to limit player choices.

Right now, in my home campaign, I don't have any plant races.  And I'm not going to worry about it much until either, A) inspiration strikes and a plant-race like the Wilden suddenly find a reason to exist in my campaign, or B) a player asks to play a Wilden.

When I'm confronted with "B" above, I could get all angsty and shout, "NO!  Silly plant people just don't belong in MY world."  Or I could be open, say yes, and work the Wilden PC into my world.  Wilden don't have to become major players in my campaign (or they could), all I need to do is be creative and find a reason why this one Wilden exists in my campaign.  I can use the fluff from PHB3 unchanged, I can alter it, or I can throw it out altogether and come up with my own.

"Hostile" to world-building?  No, it is a creative opportunity to expand my world.


----------



## Klaus (Apr 27, 2009)

Here it is.






I think the race works best with a "natural" origin, as opposed to fey. I'd even pull a Swamp Thing on the race and say that Nature harvests (ha!) the consciousness of fallen humanoids to defend itself, building natural bodies for them. Hence the use of weapons and armor: it's a fading echo of their former lives.


----------



## chronoplasm (Apr 28, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Don't you mean a Warforged Warlord|Warden/Warlock wielding a Warhammer? (| = Hybrid class, /= multi-class).




...played by Warwick Davis of Willow fame.


----------



## Stogoe (Apr 28, 2009)

Fallen Seraph said:


> See, I find that as a good thing, since then "core" isn't an excuse. It means that the player and DM have to both discuss what they wish out of the game, including stuff like what races there is, how they may be refluffed, etc.



Yeah, "Core" is a cop out, and a player or DM who refuses to negotiate about setting expectations seems narrow-minded and not someone I care to play with at all.


----------



## 77IM (Apr 28, 2009)

Fallen Seraph said:


> See, I find that as a good thing, since then "core" isn't an excuse. It means that the player and DM have to both discuss what they wish out of the game, including stuff like what races there is, how they may be refluffed, etc.




The problem is that the PHB doesn't set up that expectation.  Nowhere, in all the discussion about role-playing and how to make a character and how to play the game, does it mention this crucial negotiation step.

Other games clearly mention this explicitly, and some don't even work without it (toolkit games like Savage Worlds, True20, GURPS, etc.).  I am very much in favor of a "toolkit" approach to D&D in which the designers pump out all sorts of weird races and classes and individual groups decide which to use.  That would be awesome.  Instead, the PHB presents the races, classes, pantheon, and historical elements within as being the races, classes, pantheon, and historical elements of D&D.

This poorly set expectation is going to cause a certain amount of friction whenever Wizards releases something new that impacts the setting ("wait, if wardens are all around protecting nature and stuff, how come we've never heard of one or run into any?").  It's not the end of the world but it does make a difference and so I think it's perfectly valid to criticize a race or class on the grounds that it will be difficult to integrate into existing settings.  For example, the wilden.

 -- 77IM


----------



## CelticMutt (Apr 28, 2009)

fireinthedust said:


> 1)   They're not Fey:   they're plant people, that's PRIMAL.  Fey are Redcaps, Pixies, Nymphs, Satyrs, Eladrin, Drow, Fomorians, whatever.  They're not plant people like the Wilden.
> 
> 4)   Driads/Nymphs would be a great FeyPC race for plant people.  Mini-treants, another example.   Lizard-like plant avengers vs. Cthulhu?    wtf?   How does that in any way compare or relate to the D&D level of Driads?
> I mean, most of the players I get out are female; having a female race would be sweet.




1) Elves are Primal too ...

1) & 4) Dryad are plant people fey, and you're ok with that, but not with the Wilden as plant people fey?  Huh?



rounser said:


> Absolutely. You've got non-optional wacky PC races coming out every year that you're supposed to adapt your world to, of course it's hostile to worldbuilders. Yes, you can ban things, you can also add things to fix the system, but that doesn't get around that as written, the game is a step backwards for worldbuilding purposes.
> 
> If your world doesn't have mountains, you're clearly breaking a lot of assumptions. It's on an entirely different level to saying tieflings and dragonboobs have never had an empire.




Tieflings never had an empire in Forgotten Realms or Eberron.  Dragonborn never had an empire in Dragonlance (Draconians) or Dark Sun (Dray), and they probably are servitors at best in the Eberron dragon empire.  So why would your homebrew be required to have them have had an empire?


----------



## rounser (Apr 28, 2009)

> Tieflings never had an empire in Forgotten Realms or Eberron. Dragonborn never had an empire in Dragonlance (Draconians) or Dark Sun (Dray), and they probably are servitors at best in the Eberron dragon empire. So why would your homebrew be required to have them have had an empire?



I never said I considered 4E to be a legitimate version of D&D, not least because the implied setting doesn't fit D&D settings, and am unsurprised that it doesn't fit these D&D worlds without cataclysmic handwaves and awkward, easily disbelievable retcons (with the possible exception of Eberron, which is a kitchen sink "whatever exists in D&D" world anyway, and IMO unconvincing the first time around).  We're coming from different sets of assumptions.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 28, 2009)

It seems some people seem to assume that the fluff of every race is absolutely required in every game. It's not. It's just relevant if you want to use the "implied" setting - WotC Points of Light. 

In any other game world, you can, as always, choose to mix, match, ignore and twist stuff. YOUR campaign world doesn't have a place for an Ancient Dragonborn Empire? Well, then change the Dragonborn story.


----------



## rounser (Apr 28, 2009)

> It seems some people seem to assume that the fluff of every race is absolutely required in every game. It's not. It's just relevant if you want to use the "implied" setting - WotC Points of Light.



I don't think you understand what an implied setting is.  The implied setting is _not_ POL.  It's the setting that the rules imply.  It just happens to fit POL - a specific setting.  

The fact that the core implied setting is so specific that it doesn't fit almost anywhere else and lacks mythogical resonance due to it's use of contrived races (and at least one class) is IMO a reflection that the 4E implied setting is badly designed and doesn't do what a D&D implied setting is supposed to do - provide a generic and mythologically resonant baseline for worldbuilding across a thousand worlds.  It's a fundamental failure of the new game IMO.


----------



## Tallifer (Aug 1, 2009)

Jhaelen said:


> Well, they were called Sylvans in Dark Age of Camelot...




Now THAT was a great game!

I want to play a friar in 4th edition Dungeons and Dragons because of that game. So far my attempts to emulate him with a cleric and a homebrewed heavy shod staff have been unsuccessful.


----------



## quexul (Aug 19, 2009)

*Wilden reminds me of...*

The new illustrations remind me of the character of Fauno in Gulliermo Del Toro's "Pan's Labyrinth" 







I 'm getting the feeling that the fluff is trying to combine the dryad with a satyr. With them developing the Wilden I imagine it will be a long time, if ever, that we get the satyr or dryad as a race option. I'm not familiar with the Killoren.

Yeah, the name is a bit uninspired, and I don't like "Killoren" either. Wilden sounds like what Human commoners would call them, not the real race name. The idea that someone here had about what the Elves would call them as their racial name (just a bit simpler) would be cool.


----------

