# Races & Classes details from the WotC boards



## tsadkiel (Nov 27, 2007)

Another Hungarian player spotted Races & Classes, and actually bought the book!

Here.


----------



## Singing Smurf (Nov 27, 2007)

Care to quote the text for we poor souls at work who can't get into Gleemax?

Pretty please?


----------



## grimslade (Nov 27, 2007)

Here:
First of all bear in mind that the book reflects the state of the art as of Aug 2007, before the announcement. It still has May as the release date. It is full of fluff and art. Sometime a whole page is just a picture, so don’t expect longish text. There is no mechanic, just a few mentions that hint at mechanics.

Ability scores
Ability score adjustment have a net positive benefit (i.e. not of the type -2 / +2). I think that it will be a flat +2 most of the time. In the entry for dwarves it says that the charisma penalty is gone, thus they might have +2 Con, and that is all.

Races
Each race seems to have a clear “homeland”. Dwarves live in mountains, elves in forests. Now they come up with something for all major races. Humans are tied to plains, Halfling to rivers (swamps and marshes), Dragonborn to deserts (at least their great empire were in desert).
I will list a favoured class. As we know, mechanically it is not the favoured class of 3.x, but they admit, that some races are better at being certain classes. The “favoured class” is not listed as such, I inferred it from the text.

Human
They will remain the flexible, adaptable race as in 3.x.
Their negative personality flaw is corruptible (I don’t think it is mechanic, just fluff or the basis of some racial feat).
The text mention that humans never give up, and try thing again-and-again; this can be a racial characteristic (allow retry in some cases).
Each of them know how to handle at least one weapon (fluff or ability?).
Their homeland is the plains. Horses are important to them.
Favoured class: They fit to all classes equally well (or at least more or less equally well, the text is not that clear hear).

Dwarf
Resilient industrious folks.
One of their racial feat allow a second “second wind”.
They no longer have darkvision, only low light vision (most races will have only normal vision).
Favoured class: Fighter

Eladrin
They are the magical high elves. Both elves and eladrins were elves, but one preferred magic and stone, while the other nature and the woods.
One of their racial feats allows them to briefly enter Feywild and reemerge at another place, making a short teleport (was hinted at one of the playtest report, right?).
Favoured class: Wizard

Elf
Favoured class: Ranger

Dragonborn
Dragonborn are kin to dragon, they are egg laying (so why on Earth do females need a halter?). They are a strong race with martial incline. I think dragonborn replaces half-orc as the main damage dealing race.
At higher level they can choose racial feat that gives them breath weapon or wings.
Probably have claw attack.
Favoured class: warlord

Halfling
Now they admit, that the main source of inspiration for the 3.x halfling is the kender. We suspected it all along. They are still the lucky, bit thievery race as they were. Added their liking for rivers and boats (and thus being a merchant and wandered).
Favoured class: Rogue

Thiefling
Lots of fluff, but really not so much crunch. I never played them, so I don’t know how they were in 3.x. Their look is rather unified now.
Favoured class: Warlock


----------



## Singing Smurf (Nov 27, 2007)

@grimslade: Thank you!

I'll have to set aside a few minutes today to pout about my beloved Orcs being displaced by these newfangled dragon-thingies.

It looks like _both_ of the new races are on the cover of the PHB: Tiefling Fighter and Dragonborn Wizard perhaps.


----------



## Aage (Nov 27, 2007)

Oh yeah, I'm loving it 

Halflings as merchants.. Woo!!  
Second Second Wind sounds very dwarfy indeed
Low-Light for Dwarfs 
Don't care for dragonborn, but I'll not use them, so I don't care
Not particularly fond of eladrin either, but I know that some people like elfs as arcane masters, so I'm fine with them being core
Half-elfs I'm disappointed with though, I'd prefer a template for half-XX or feats/talents like: Elf-blooded, Human-blooded etc


----------



## Bagpuss (Nov 27, 2007)

Singing Smurf said:
			
		

> Dragonborn Wizard perhaps.




If they are that human looking I'm really disappointed.


----------



## Dragonbait (Nov 27, 2007)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> If they are that human looking I'm really disappointed.




Seconded


----------



## Wormwood (Nov 27, 2007)

Great find---Thanks!

Verrrry interesting info.


----------



## Wormwood (Nov 27, 2007)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> If they are that human looking I'm really disappointed.




Thirded. Big time.

edit: But that would fit perfectly with my 'tiefling art bait-and-switch' theory.


----------



## Dave Turner (Nov 27, 2007)

This far into the thread and no mention of the kender as main inspiration for 4E halflings?  When coupled with the exclusion of gnomes as core race, I predict much rending of garments over this tidbit.


----------



## Stone Dog (Nov 27, 2007)

So humans correspond to White, dwarves to Red, elves to Green.

Dragonborn may be a red/white mix, halflings sound blue/green and tieflings may be some sort of black?



...


: runs :


----------



## Wormwood (Nov 27, 2007)

Dave Turner said:
			
		

> This far into the thread and no mention of the kender as main inspiration for 4E halflings?  When coupled with the exclusion of gnomes as core race, I predict much rending of garments over this tidbit.




I need more supporting details to come to any conclusion. 

3e did a decent job of Kenderizing halflings. The fact that they're not going in the other direction and Hobbitizing them is good enough news for me.


----------



## Aage (Nov 27, 2007)

Stone Dog said:
			
		

> So humans correspond to White, dwarves to Red, elves to Green.
> Dragonborn may be a red/white mix, halflings sound blue/green and tieflings may be some sort of black?




With my limited knowledge of magic I would say dwarfs are white actually (law, order, tradition... right?). Only connection to red really is the mountain thing?


----------



## Wormwood (Nov 27, 2007)

Likes:

Eladrin / Elf split
No Darkvision
Itinerant Halflings
Fallen Dragonborn empire
Dragonborn as a true race, not a 'template'


----------



## TerraDave (Nov 27, 2007)

I was thinking something along these lines this morning:



> Dragonborn...great empire were in desert




And to see it here is...sort of annoying...


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Nov 27, 2007)

Stone Dog said:
			
		

> So humans correspond to White, dwarves to Red, elves to Green.
> 
> Dragonborn may be a red/white mix, halflings sound blue/green and tieflings may be some sort of black?
> 
> ...



Don't run too far.

I think I'm on your side.

From those tasty, simple feats to this?  :\ 

That homeland thing feels really tacked on. Once you define humans into a niche alongside the other races, instead of adaptable and nicheless, you...

....oh, god...

You remind me of an RTS game. I love to play them, but that feel of 'separate but equal!' intruding on the mechanics...


----------



## ferratus (Nov 27, 2007)

Didn't I hear somewhere that there wasn't going to be favoured classes in 4e?


----------



## Wormwood (Nov 27, 2007)

ferratus said:
			
		

> Didn't I hear somewhere that there wasn't going to be favoured classes in 4e?




The term 'favored class' probably means something different in 4e.


----------



## Aage (Nov 27, 2007)

ferratus said:
			
		

> Didn't I hear somewhere that there wasn't going to be favoured classes in 4e?




Not as a mechanic, but as fluff; At least that's my interpretation.


----------



## JohnSnow (Nov 27, 2007)

ferratus said:
			
		

> Didn't I hear somewhere that there wasn't going to be favoured classes in 4e?




You did. And if you read what was written, you'll notice that "favored class" was the poster's terminology, not the book's. What the book does is list racial abilities and fluff text that imply what class each race is particularly well-suited for. That's all.

So it isn't really "favored class" as we know it. Make sense?


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Nov 27, 2007)

Dave Turner said:
			
		

> This far into the thread and no mention of the kender as main inspiration for 4E halflings?



...Except that the post says that they admit that kender were the main inspiration for *3e* halflings, and we're getting more of the same.  This isn't a change.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 27, 2007)

I like the crunch in the article.

An extra second wind is fine by me.  One of my big hopes for 4e is that racial abilities will be universally useful, rather than the highly, highly situational ones we have now (+4 dodge v giants?)  Everyone in every campaign can use an extra second wind.

No darkvision!  Hooray!  Lighting, and problems surrounding lighting, are one of the classic elements of D&D, and having a character in the party who ignores it is just annoying.  Low light vision is much better.

I like the Eladrin racial feat.  I'm all for giving out little bits of magic to those who want them.

The dragonborn seem alright to me.  They're not classic tolkienesque fantasy, but I'm pretty sure I'll survive.  And if this means that the core books will make available a character who can naturally fly, I will be a very, very happy person.  Even if its only a very high level ability.


----------



## Kurotowa (Nov 27, 2007)

Aage said:
			
		

> Not as a mechanic, but as fluff; At least that's my interpretation.




Or at least as a different mechanic.  IIRC, they mentioned things like dwarves getting racial abilities that matched well with fighter abilities.  This could be something like that.


----------



## Aage (Nov 27, 2007)

Kurotowa said:
			
		

> Or at least as a different mechanic.  IIRC, they mentioned things like dwarves getting racial abilities that matched well with fighter abilities.  This could be something like that.




Yeah, exactly, so the dwarf is better fit to be a fighter.. But there is nothing hindering him from being a rogue; or hindering an eladrin from being a fighter...


----------



## Pinotage (Nov 27, 2007)

Hmm. Ambivalent. Is it just me or are they trying to dump too much setting information into the core rules? Why do humans have to like horses? What if I want a dwarf who lives in the swamp? Does he have to be a halfling-loving ostracized dwarf? In 3.5e humans had Environment: Any. Why try and stick them in plains? Ugh. I don't know.

Pinotage


----------



## Singing Smurf (Nov 27, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Thirded. Big time.
> 
> edit: But that would fit perfectly with my 'tiefling art bait-and-switch' theory.




Hey, I didn't say I was _happy_ about it.


I was reminded of your earlier discussion of the illustration with the tail (that I thought was a Tiefling) as well.


----------



## NaturalZero (Nov 27, 2007)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> If they are that human looking I'm really disappointed.




In another thread on the WotC boards, someone said that one of the devs (or maybe it was Reynolds himself) admited that the cover showed a tiefling and a human.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Nov 27, 2007)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> Hmm. Ambivalent. Is it just me or are they trying to dump too much setting information into the core rules? Why do humans have to like horses? What if I want a dwarf who lives in the swamp? Does he have to be a halfling-loving ostracized dwarf? In 3.5e humans had Environment: Any. Why try and stick them in plains? Ugh. I don't know.
> 
> Pinotage




yeah, not real sure how much I like that, especially pigeon-holing Humans in such a way. But, this book was sent to the printers long ago, and the 4E PHB is still being finalized, so perhaps some things will change a bit still....hopefully. 

Really not digging Haflings as swamp dwellers though.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Nov 27, 2007)

Howdy Bagpuss dude! 



			
				Bagpuss said:
			
		

> If they are that human looking I'm really disappointed.




Didn't the poster mention that Dragonborn were able to take 'Racial Feats' that allowed them to become more Draconic? (Wings and so forth)

I like the idea that the more draconic they look like the (potentially) more powerful they are.

Also it seems that all the core classes have a favoured race with the exception of the Paladin class (Warforged perhaps?)


----------



## Piratecat (Nov 27, 2007)

Stone Dog said:
			
		

> So humans correspond to White, dwarves to Red, elves to Green.
> 
> Dragonborn may be a red/white mix, halflings sound blue/green and tieflings may be some sort of black?
> 
> ...



Wait, WoW doesn't use those rules!    

Interesting. I think I like. I'm not worried about the kender thing; EVERYONE at WotC knows that most people detest kenders. They won't shoot themselves in the foot by giving us a kender clone.


----------



## Bagpuss (Nov 27, 2007)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Didn't the poster mention that Dragonborn were able to take 'Racial Feats' that allowed them to become more Draconic? (Wings and so forth)
> 
> I like the idea that the more draconic they look like the (potentially) more powerful they are.




Ah so they could look even more human than that thing in the picture.   

You aren't helping.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Nov 27, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> I need more supporting details to come to any conclusion.
> 
> 3e did a decent job of Kenderizing halflings. The fact that they're not going in the other direction and Hobbitizing them is good enough news for me.



Yup. 3e took the good things about kender (adventurous, athletic, fearless halflings who have a reason to actually join the party), and ignored the bad (kleptomania, incredible obnoxiousness).

Overall, I think this sounds good. As for the "homelands"... there have always been dwarves who live in human cities, or elves living away from the forests, and so on. So, I'm certain that in the 4e, although most elven nations exist in wooded regions, there are elves living in the hills, on the plains, down at the swamps, and so forth.

And humans living on plains actually makes pretty good sense to me; agriculture, cavalry, far-ranging travel and trade.


----------



## Oldtimer (Nov 27, 2007)

Aage said:
			
		

> Half-elfs I'm disappointed with though, I'd prefer a template for half-XX or feats/talents like: Elf-blooded, Human-blooded etc



Considering they weren't mentioned at all, I'm not sure what you are disappointed about. Did you read something in that post that I didn't?


----------



## Aage (Nov 27, 2007)

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> Considering they weren't mentioned at all, I'm not sure what you are disappointed about. Did you read something in that post that I didn't?




Whoops, you are right...  

I must have assumed that they were listed when I wrote the response, considering they've been mentioned alot during playtests and such.


----------



## Szatany (Nov 27, 2007)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> Hmm. Ambivalent. Is it just me or are they trying to dump too much setting information into the core rules? Why do humans have to like horses?



Because horses are very useful on plains?  I think they are trying to match races to a terrain that plays to their strengths. Humans' strength is mostly in numbers, so a vast levelled area is good for human troops to wage war (far better than a craggy hills where a single tough but not mobile dwarf can stop a lot of enemies). Lizards are used to heat so dragonborn dominate their enemies in hot deserts of the south. I'm sure some of them live in mountains or plains but those are not the places they have an advantage. Halflings are not warrior race and have to resort to either fleeing (rivers) or smarts. They are small and light so swamps make an ideal hidding place because every bigger enemy (and most of them are) will be simply sucked in.



			
				Pinotage said:
			
		

> What if I want a dwarf who lives in the swamp? Does he have to be a halfling-loving ostracized dwarf? In 3.5e humans had Environment: Any. Why try and stick them in plains? Ugh. I don't know.
> 
> Pinotage



Who said there isn't an occasional dwarven city in a forest or a elven town in a swamp? This is _generic_ infomation about the setting and is by no means exclusive.


----------



## Pinotage (Nov 27, 2007)

Szatany said:
			
		

> Because horses are very useful on plains?  I think they are trying to match races to a terrain that plays to their strengths. Humans' strength is mostly in numbers, so a vast levelled area is good for human troops to wage war (far better than a craggy hills where a single tough but not mobile dwarf can stop a lot of enemies). Lizards are used to heat so dragonborn dominate their enemies in hot deserts of the south. I'm sure some of them live in mountains or plains but those are not the places they have an advantage. Halflings are not warrior race and have to resort to either fleeing (rivers) or smarts. They are small and light so swamps make an ideal hidding place because every bigger enemy (and most of them are) will be simply sucked in.
> 
> Who said there isn't an occasional dwarven city in a forest or a elven town in a swamp? This is _generic_ infomation about the setting and is by no means exclusive.




I'm sure the terrains make sense from a certain point of view. But why bother with them at all in a core book that should be setting neutral (or at least largely)? If, as they say, they're planning on releasing a setting a year, why not make the core books as generic as possible. Why add the strange flavor? Meh. I'm not really bothered. It'll all get thrown out in the old end. It would've been nice if those pages had been used for something more useful, though (other than me sounding like a grognard!).

Pinotage


----------



## tsadkiel (Nov 27, 2007)

Drkfathr1 said:
			
		

> yeah, not real sure how much I like that, especially pigeon-holing Humans in such a way. But, this book was sent to the printers long ago, and the 4E PHB is still being finalized, so perhaps some things will change a bit still....hopefully.
> 
> Really not digging Haflings as swamp dwellers though.




Since one of the playtest reports has the (desert dwelling) dragonborn running a maritime empire, I don't think the flavor will be that difficult to change.


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 27, 2007)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> I'm sure the terrains make sense from a certain point of view. But why bother with them at all in a core book that should be setting neutral (or at least largely)? If, as they say, they're planning on releasing a setting a year, why not make the core books as generic as possible. Why add the strange flavor? Meh. I'm not really bothered. It'll all get thrown out in the old end. It would've been nice if those pages had been used for something more useful, though (other than me sounding like a grognard!).




Here's the problem with this: the PHB is not setting-neutral (and wasn't in 3e since it's covered in Greyhawk lore). It assumes a brand-new meta-setting, which makes different assumptions about things than previous editions.


----------



## Aage (Nov 27, 2007)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> I'm sure the terrains make sense from a certain point of view. But why bother with them at all in a core book that should be setting neutral (or at least largely)? If, as they say, they're planning on releasing a setting a year, why not make the core books as generic as possible. Why add the strange flavor? Meh. I'm not really bothered. It'll all get thrown out in the old end. It would've been nice if those pages had been used for something more useful, though (other than me sounding like a grognard!).
> 
> Pinotage




So the perfect Phb would have only the rules for dwarfs/elfs/whatever, and not a single line of fluff?


----------



## The Merciful (Nov 27, 2007)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> I'm sure the terrains make sense from a certain point of view. But why bother with them at all in a core book that should be setting neutral (or at least largely)? If, as they say, they're planning on releasing a setting a year, why not make the core books as generic as possible. Why add the strange flavor? Meh. I'm not really bothered. It'll all get thrown out in the old end. It would've been nice if those pages had been used for something more useful, though (other than me sounding like a grognard!).



Err... Aren't we talking about a preview book giving a sort of look behind the stage, not the up coming 4th edition rule books?

Anyway, short mentions of races' cultures and common habitats seem hardly waste of space to me. And setting neutrality is a rather relative thing - if going for total netrality, we would not have classes, races, weapons or monsters, but mere stat blocks. I do like some shape in things.


----------



## jasin (Nov 27, 2007)

Stone and magic loving Noldor eladrin? Win.

Unified look tieflings? Fail.


----------



## Mercule (Nov 27, 2007)

Drkfathr1 said:
			
		

> Really not digging Haflings as swamp dwellers though.




Actually, I'll take short bayou-folk over short gypsies any day.  I may actually un-ban halflings if they have decent flavor text.


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 27, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> Unified look tieflings? Fail.




They should have the same diversity of appearance that humans have: coloration and cosmetic differences, but a human looks like a human no matter where he's from. Remember, tieflings are now a race, instead of a hodgepodge of "daddy was a pit fiend."


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 27, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> Don't run too far.
> 
> I think I'm on your side.
> 
> ...



Next thing you know, BAM, zerg rush.


----------



## TerraDave (Nov 27, 2007)

Regarding *Men on the Plains*

Western Europe has almost no natural plains, as in places that are both flat and natural grass lands. I guess it would all be elves, dwarves, and halflings. 

But plains are also not all they are cracked up to be. They tend to have less water, less wood for building and fuel, and fewer natural defenses (so many castles and cities in Europe where built on hills for a reason). And you will have a hard time thinking of a pre-modern civilisation on plains except nomads. There is nothing wrong with nomads: they will kick the arse of any non-nomad that tries to build something on their planes. But if you want humans that aren't nomads, that is another story.


----------



## Wolfspider (Nov 27, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Next thing you know, BAM, zerg rush.




Ooooh.  Damn puppies.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 27, 2007)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> Regarding *Men on the Plains*
> 
> Western Europe has almost no natural plains, as in places that are both flat and natural grass lands. I guess it would all be elves, dwarves, and halflings.
> 
> But plains are also not all they are cracked up to be. They tend to have less water, less wood for building and fuel, and fewer natural defenses (so many castles and cities in Europe where built on hills for a reason). And you will have a hard time thinking of a pre-modern civilisation on plains except nomads. There is nothing wrong with nomads: they will kick the arse of any non-nomad that tries to build something on their planes. But if you want humans that aren't nomads, that is another story.



Where do civilizations appear?  Not on the plains.  Not in the mountains.  Not in swamps.  River valleys.  Places where there is lots of water to drink, to give to your animals, and to irrigate with.  Humans will aggregate at river valleys.  Maybe other races have physiologies more suited to different environments, but humans, given their druthers, will show up near rivers.  There's a reason why the steppes and plains have such low population densities.  They don't support large populations.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Nov 27, 2007)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> Regarding *Men on the Plains*
> 
> Western Europe has almost no natural plains, as in places that are both flat and natural grass lands. I guess it would all be elves, dwarves, and halflings.



Initially, yeah.  The early Human Empires are all on (flood) plains: Egypt, Babylon, Indus, Aztec and Yang-Tze.  We eventually migrated into the wooded and mountainous lands, but that's in part because (IRL) there weren't any elves or dwarves already living there and prepared to stop us.

I think Plains makes sense for humans.  We did evolve on the African savannah after all, and we all still like our little bit it surrounding our homes (aka, the "yard" or "garden").


----------



## Irda Ranger (Nov 27, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> There's a reason why the steppes and plains have such low population densities.  They don't support large populations.



If we derived nutrition from scenic vistas though, watch out! Have you ever seen the Mongolian steppe?  Beau-_teeeee_-ful.

Your argument doesn't hold as much weight in D&D world though.  Decanter of Endless Water anyone?  It's a little known fact that only two of those can fill a Roman Aqueduct to capacity.


----------



## Intrope (Nov 27, 2007)

Hmm, Humans == Plains + Horses? I wonder if an (implied) human ability is the ability to domesticate (as opposed to enslave or ally with) creatures? That'd be an interesting idea...


----------



## Rechan (Nov 27, 2007)

> Dragonborn are kin to dragon, they are egg laying (so why on Earth do females need a halter?).



'Cause geeks love boobs.

It actually pisses me off that he didn't give us tiefling fluff.

GIVE US TIEFLING FLUFF DAGNABIT.


----------



## Pinotage (Nov 27, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Here's the problem with this: the PHB is not setting-neutral (and wasn't in 3e since it's covered in Greyhawk lore). It assumes a brand-new meta-setting, which makes different assumptions about things than previous editions.




Guess I'm just not a fan of the new assumptions.  :\ 

Pinotage


----------



## Pinotage (Nov 27, 2007)

Aage said:
			
		

> So the perfect Phb would have only the rules for dwarfs/elfs/whatever, and not a single line of fluff?




I never said that. I just alluded to the fact that it should be more generic and less restrictive. A racial description can be full of fluff and at the same time not restrict the race. You can bet that some of the first 4e products will contain 'mountain humans' or 'underground eladrin' or 'swamp dragonfolk'. Define the race, give it some characteristics, and let the setting decide the rest.

I'd much prefer a set of core rulebooks where all the core races had listed 'Environment: Any'.

Pinotage


----------



## Shortman McLeod (Nov 27, 2007)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> I'd much prefer a set of core rulebooks where all the core races had listed 'Environment: Any'.




Why stop there? We could go on to have, "Abilities: Any.  Age of adulthood: Any.  Favored class: Any."

The GURPSification of D&D.  Nah.


----------



## Szatany (Nov 27, 2007)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> I never said that. I just alluded to the fact that it should be more generic and less restrictive. A racial description can be full of fluff and at the same time not restrict the race. You can bet that some of the first 4e products will contain 'mountain humans' or 'underground eladrin' or 'swamp dragonfolk'. Define the race, give it some characteristics, and let the setting decide the rest.
> 
> I'd much prefer a set of core rulebooks where all the core races had listed 'Environment: Any'.
> 
> Pinotage



Elves are nimble and agile thus forests are a good place for them. Elves have abilities that indeed make them nimble and agile, but where did you get the idea that they get abilities that are reliant on forests? I read nothing of that sort, meaning you can have an elf from mountains that lives in mountains? Where's the restriction (other that the one in your head), because I can't see any.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Nov 27, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Where do civilizations appear?  Not on the plains.  Not in the mountains.  Not in swamps.  River valleys.  Places where there is lots of water to drink, to give to your animals, and to irrigate with.  Humans will aggregate at river valleys.  Maybe other races have physiologies more suited to different environments, but humans, given their druthers, will show up near rivers.  There's a reason why the steppes and plains have such low population densities.  They don't support large populations.



It is best not to discount the people from the steppes just because they had low populations. Steppes peoples like the Huns and Mongolians have had huge impacts on history. You can probably describe a lot of Eurasian history as the conflict between settled river-valley people and nomadic people of the plains. Both (along with important oceanic and sea travel), pretty much define human civilization.

After all, the difference between plains and river valleys is pretty much semantics. I bet the two are farily indistinct as far as the flavor for humans in 4E is concerned.

The important thing is the distinction between plains and other terrain like mountains, deserts, or forests. Mountains and deserts are the terrain humans in the real world would only settle in as a last resort. Humans can't ive in such terrain easily, but it seems that Dwarves and Dragonborn can do so easily. I like that. Similarly, large populations of people tend to cut down forests in order to create open fields, so I wouldn't say that humans are a forest civilization like Elves are portrayed to be. Halflings being riverfolk is a nice touch, and implies something very different then people who just live in a river-valley (though this may be my experiences with Suikoden 5 altering my expecatations).

As a whole, I think these assumptions are basic enough that they fit well into generic flavor and a wide variety of settings.

Does anyone know what kind of terrain is good for Tieflings or Eladrin? I suppose Tieflings may not have one, but it seems Eladrin should.


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 27, 2007)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> I never said that. I just alluded to the fact that it should be more generic and less restrictive. A racial description can be full of fluff and at the same time not restrict the race. You can bet that some of the first 4e products will contain 'mountain humans' or 'underground eladrin' or 'swamp dragonfolk'. Define the race, give it some characteristics, and let the setting decide the rest.



Not necessarily. Several designers have mentioned they didn't like the explosion of subraces in 3E.



			
				Pinotage said:
			
		

> I'd much prefer a set of core rulebooks where all the core races had listed 'Environment: Any'.



I'd hate that. Really. Unless they introduced a distinction between race and culture.

Are you, btw. arguing from the viewpoint of an earlier edition?

I'm asking because what you'd prefer is not something we've had in 3E. All of the PC races were assigned a certain climate and terrain (in the 3.5 MM). Humans weren't in the MM, so you can only guess what their Environment entry would have said.


----------



## Hairfoot (Nov 27, 2007)

> Now they admit, that the main source of inspiration for the 3.x halfling is the kender.



Was there, inconceivably, some doubt about this?

It's like George Lucas "admitting" that the inspiration for Empire Strikes Back was Star Wars, or Honda finally conceding that the inspiration for the blue 1999 unleaded automatic Civic was the red 1999 unleaded automatic Civic.



			
				Stone Dog said:
			
		

> So humans correspond to White, dwarves to Red, elves to Green



Snap!  Under WotC's stewardship, I knew it was only a matter of time until  D&D became Magic: the Roleplaying Game.  Might not be a bad thing.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 28, 2007)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> HWhat if I want a dwarf who lives in the swamp? Does he have to be a halfling-loving ostracized dwarf?



This is no different from previous editions. Dwarves have always been under the mountain. This doesn't mean ALL dwarf characters have to be.

The only difference here is a designated niche for humans.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Nov 28, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> 'Cause geeks love boobs.



Argh! Arcane Codex flashbacks!

Fainting, LT.


----------



## helium3 (Nov 28, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> This is no different from previous editions. Dwarves have always been under the mountain. This doesn't mean ALL dwarf characters have to be.
> 
> The only difference here is a designated niche for humans.




Actually, oddly enough Dwarves don't live UNDER mountains.


----------



## Klaus (Nov 28, 2007)

Halflings tied to rivers and swamps, eh? I wanna make me a halfling named Tom. Or Huck.

Dragonborn are egg layers, and the female have boobs? I know! They're Platypusfolk! You heard it here first!

Humans on plains: in 2e the fluff said that the gods divided the world among them, with elves in the forests and dwarves in the mountains and gnomes in the hills and so forth, and humans would live anywhere the could make a living.

I actually like humans tied to plains and horses. Very North Africa/Middle East, which is where human civilization arose.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Nov 28, 2007)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> Hmm. Ambivalent. Is it just me or are they trying to dump too much setting information into the core rules? Why do humans have to like horses? What if I want a dwarf who lives in the swamp? Does he have to be a halfling-loving ostracized dwarf? In 3.5e humans had Environment: Any. Why try and stick them in plains? Ugh. I don't know.



Sweet tapdancing Christ.  Are we really to the point where we complain about assertions so broad as "Dwarves like mountains?"  Seriously?

Words do not exist for a facepalm so large.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 28, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Actually, oddly enough Dwarves don't live UNDER mountains.



Indeed. It was, what do you call it, a figure of speech.

I also said the mountain, singular. Did I mean there was only one mountain in which dwarves dwell?


----------



## Xethreau (Nov 28, 2007)

For those of you who don't know, there is more information posted by the person that thread:



			
				Kunadam said:
			
		

> > For those who aren't happy, look on the bright side. At least the mystery race didn't turn out to be Warforged.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## DandD (Nov 28, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Actually, oddly enough Dwarves don't live UNDER mountains.



Perhaps they live IN mountains. Like the Dwarves in Warhammer.


----------



## med stud (Nov 28, 2007)

From WotC- board


> Human
> They will remain the flexible, adaptable race as in 3.x.
> Their negative personality flaw is corruptible (I don’t think it is mechanic, just fluff or the basis of some racial feat).
> The text mention that humans never give up, and try thing again-and-again; this can be a racial characteristic (allow retry in some cases).
> ...




I think the poster who wrote that may have written "plains" where he meant open spaces that aren't deserts. Like someone posted above, open areas is where humanity shines and given time a settlement of humans will most often have cleared forests around it (for building materials, security and farmland). Horses have traditionally been very useful for humans. Until maybe 150 years ago, cultures with horses had a really big edge on cultures without.

Does this mean that there aren't forestdwelling tribes or Seminole- style people? No, but they are in the minority and out of their element. Where elves preserves forests for their lifestyle, humans will cut them for _their_ lifestyle.


----------



## med stud (Nov 28, 2007)

DandD said:
			
		

> Perhaps they live IN mountains. Like the Dwarves in Warhammer.



Are there any setting where dwarves live _on_ mountains? I have never seen one that I remember.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 28, 2007)

Aage said:
			
		

> Yeah, exactly, so the dwarf is better fit to be a fighter.. But there is nothing hindering him from being a rogue; or hindering an eladrin from being a fighter...




... other than punitive opportunity costs.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 28, 2007)

med stud said:
			
		

> Are there any setting where dwarves live _on_ mountains? I have never seen one that I remember.




The story of the three hill dwarves gruff?


----------



## Banshee16 (Nov 28, 2007)

Jhaelen said:
			
		

> Not necessarily. Several designers have mentioned they didn't like the explosion of subraces in 3E.




I think we're deluding ourselves to think the subraces won't reappear.  They always do.  In 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Ed.  In 2nd and 3rd Ed. they were removed from the PHBs, and then appeared in supplements.

Subraces sell.  Players love trying out new variants, and they buy books that detail those variants.

Personally, I'd rather have a limited number of subraces, rather than 1,000,000 different types of bipedal, intelligent humanoids.  That right there kind of messes with my suspension of disbelief.

Banshee


----------



## Rechan (Nov 28, 2007)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Personally, I'd rather have a limited number of subraces, rather than 1,000,000 different types of bipedal, intelligent humanoids.  That right there kind of messes with my suspension of disbelief.



Really?

So Monster books with at least a thousand+ monsters, all of varying CRs that could have stomped the world flat twelve times over are okay, but just various intelligent races that could be in your campaign don't? Or the thousand plus PrCs, representiong at least a thousand organizations?

There are at _least_ 300 different types of undead. To the point that there should be an Undead caused from people slipping on banana peels. But I can't conceptually jump Every Book into _one_ world, no matter the size, because they'd all be stacked on top of eachother.

You do realize that just because they're published _doesn't_ mean they're _all in one setting_. The Jungle Elves may be printed, but they're better off being dropped into a Jungle Setting, not just 'the kinda jungle over there'.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Nov 28, 2007)

Let me get this straight...

So.... Smeagol was a 4e halfling?


----------



## FireLance (Nov 28, 2007)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> So.... Smeegle was a 4e halfling?



Smeagol was a hobbit.

Goldenmagic Wardragon's Smeagol is a 4e halfling.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Nov 28, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> ... other than punitive opportunity costs.



Do we know that there are going to be punitive opportunity costs? As far as I can recall, the idea was to give the races abilities that are always useful, no matter what class they take... but are _most_ useful when combined with the race's "preferred class".


----------



## Pinotage (Nov 28, 2007)

Shortman McLeod said:
			
		

> Why stop there? We could go on to have, "Abilities: Any.  Age of adulthood: Any.  Favored class: Any."
> 
> The GURPSification of D&D.  Nah.




Not quite. I've never played GURPS so I have no idea. Look, there is a broad definition of each race that one can acquire from popular culture. Dwarfs are gruff, drink ale, live in caves and underground. Elves are aloof, long-living, etc. Those things are all fine. You can construct a standard core race from that without any problems. And, as far as environment goes, let's face it, when you put together an adventuring party, who cares that the elf was from the forest or the human from the plains? The campaign setting can sort that out. Pathfinder, for example, has dwarves that don't live underground at all. 

All I'm saying is that you can construct a fine race without forcing it into a particular setting or 'home'. The core books don't have to have lengthy pages about elves loving trees, how they construct their homes in trees, or how halflings make their swamp boats. That kind of fluff fits in a setting, not a core book. You can define the broad characteristics of the race without needing to do this. Saying things like 'humans like horses' just shouldn't be in the core books, IMO.

As for the others things you mention, of course they can go into the core. Those are playtested abilities that define a race. Where you put that race in a campaign setting, is something I believe the campaign setting should sort out. If everybody is just going to create that halfling from the city, or the dwarf in the forest, then why bother specifying where they're from in the first place?

Pinotage


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Nov 28, 2007)

*No Half-elves in Races and Classes!*

This just posted on gleemax  by kunadam:




			
				taski said:
			
		

> View Post
> Anything about half-elves?






			
				kunadam said:
			
		

> Nothing. Strange as it is, as half-elves get mentioned from the announcement of 4th edition, but there is nothing in the book about them.





So, when Wizards wrote Races and Classes they didn't have half-elves, but since then they've decided to add them back in?

Have Wizards gone *totally mad*? They had a wonderful opportunity to get rid half-elves - both a third elvish race and another damn half-species - but they thought the game needed them! Wise heads had removed them, and foolish ones put them back!

I call on Wizards to ensure that half-elves are removed from the PHB, and the extra space used to put druids in. Or choose a more widely loved and less controversial race, such as half-vampires. Or warforged.


----------



## Pinotage (Nov 28, 2007)

Szatany said:
			
		

> Elves are nimble and agile thus forests are a good place for them. Elves have abilities that indeed make them nimble and agile, but where did you get the idea that they get abilities that are reliant on forests? I read nothing of that sort, meaning you can have an elf from mountains that lives in mountains? Where's the restriction (other that the one in your head), because I can't see any.




Huh? An agile and nimble elf is equally suitable to a forest, a ragged mountain or a swamp. So why put the in a forest? Why not have the setting define where the elf should go?

Let's take the dragonborn example. The information we have says they're decendents from an ancient civilisation of the desert. So what it my campaign setting doesn't have ancient civilisations? What if it doesn't have deserts? Do I have to remove dragonkin?

That's a 'extreme' example, of course, since you can simply change the environment and backstory, but it gets the point across, I think. 3e was generally fine with its races, but reading this thread you get the idea that 4e is going one step further.

Pinotage


----------



## Derren (Nov 28, 2007)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> Let's take the dragonborn example. The information we have says they're decendents from an ancient civilisation of the desert. So what it my campaign setting doesn't have ancient civilisations? What if it doesn't have deserts? Do I have to remove dragonkin?




What if my world has no forests, do I have to remove elves? And it also has no mountains, so no dwarves?
What if the campaign settings consist out of 5 ft. wide floating islands in the middle of nowhere? Do I have to remove all races which can't fly and are bigger than medium size?


----------



## Pinotage (Nov 28, 2007)

Merlin the Tuna said:
			
		

> Are we really to the point where we complain about assertions so broad as "Dwarves like mountains?"  Seriously?




Sure. Pathfinder dwarves don't line in mountains. Many different dwarves and subraces don't live in mountains. Loads of elven subraces don't live in forests. And humans are certainly not only from the plains.

To be honest, I don't realy mind. The settings will move the races wherever they want in the old end. The core can do what it will. And I can see the need to put stuff in the core. I just feel 4e put too much in. Such as the 'history' of dragonkin, for example.

It's a fine point, and I don't feel like nit-picking it to death in this thread.

Pinotage


----------



## Pinotage (Nov 28, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> What if my world has no forests, do I have to remove elves? And it also has no mountains, so no dwarves?
> What if the campaign settings consist out of 5 ft. wide floating islands in the middle of nowhere? Do I have to remove all races which can't fly and are bigger than medium size?




You've made my point exactly, thank you. Let the campaign setting decide where the race should go. 

Pinotage


----------



## Derren (Nov 28, 2007)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> You've made my point exactly, thank you. Let the campaign setting decide where the race should go.
> 
> Pinotage




But then no race should be in the PHB as there can always be worlds where one PHB core race doesn't fit.
The standard setting simply says that --in this setting-- the dragonborn come from the desert. And while new players might feel constrained by this more experienced DMs should have no problem with placing dragonborn in marches (to resemble traditional lizardmen) or other places.
Also this is just the prefered environemnt. it doesn't mean that there can't be exceptions like humans living in deserts or dwarves having a habour city on a big river to trade with other races etc.


----------



## Aloïsius (Nov 28, 2007)

IMHO, things like "elves live in forrest, dwarves live in mountains" are there for newish DM who are looking for guidelines. 
Who, among the grognards, use ALL of the DMG suggestions/advices/generation tables ? Maybe you read them once, and pick an idea, and that's all. 
It will be the same with 4e (ze game remains ze same !). There will be simple guidelines in both the PHB/DMG, and most experienced people won't care about them.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Nov 28, 2007)

re: Dragonborn

Well, at least they're not that god-awful "I used to be a (whatever), but I went to sleep inside a magic egg and now I'm all better" fluff from 3.5. It's fine as another race out there somewhere - in fact I like them as a rare race, because there's no reason they can't just spring up where they never were before - but as a core race for a new edition? Too weak to live.

Desert-dwelling egg-laying reptilian humanoids, huh? Yeah, I did that already. Except mine were semi-prescient sun-worshipers who could draw sustenance from living blood alone for days (taken only as a gift, never by force). These I like enough - big meaty head-crunchers from a military empire across the water. They tend towards warlord (the class) because they're the only people who think about actually training someone to become a warlord (the social position).

Yeah...I can get into this. Alright, back on board again!


----------



## Obergnom (Nov 28, 2007)

Is there a problem at all? The new PHB will imply a certain setting, which differs from the previous core setting. So what?

It's not as if humans gain a +1 to attack rolls when they fight on open terrain. Stick to the old setting and use the new rules. (Gnomes will be in the MM, and I would not be supprised if orcs and maybe half-orcs will be in there, too)

If all you complain about is, that new players will no longer see the world of D&D the way you do... well, I guess you will have to live with that


----------



## Pinotage (Nov 28, 2007)

Obergnom said:
			
		

> Is there a problem at all? The new PHB will imply a certain setting, which differs from the previous core setting. So what?
> 
> It's not as if humans gain a +1 to attack rolls when they fight on open terrain. Stick to the old setting and use the new rules. (Gnomes will be in the MM, and I would not be supprised if orcs and maybe half-orcs will be in there, too)
> 
> If all you complain about is, that new players will no longer see the world of D&D the way you do... well, I guess you will have to live with that




No, not really a problem at all.    I'm quite happy to accept 'dwarves in mountains' and 'elves in forests' as part of the the core. I'm just hoping there won't be much more than that such as, for example, the history of the race (as given for dragonkin from the desert) or any such aspect that constrains them too much to that environment. I like a cosmopolitan world where races are found everywhere and live in communities everywhere, perhaps not in equal numbers, with a homeland (if any) that's defined by the setting. I'm just hoping that 4e doesn't go too far.

Pinotage


----------



## Simon Marks (Nov 28, 2007)

Only, it's not in the Core Rulebook.

It's in a book about "What we thought about while designing the races".

We don't know what's in the core rulebook - it could be as simple as "The Dragonborn prefer to live in hot, arid climates - especially deserts"


----------



## Elphilm (Nov 28, 2007)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> Why do humans have to like horses?



"Man the mortal, master of horses"

Needless to say I love it.


----------



## Pinotage (Nov 28, 2007)

Elphilm said:
			
		

> "Man the mortal, master of horses"
> 
> Needless to say I love it.




Heh. There's no denying the effectiveness of the Huns racing across the plains and devastating almost the entire Europe. It's got something going for it.

Pinotage


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Nov 28, 2007)

My thoughts are that the lifespan of Elves will be reduced to fit more in with the human scale. We all know the inherent nonsense in living quietly until 125 then hitting 20th level before your birthday party is over. Eladrin on the other hand - it mentions them building cities in the Feywild - perhaps time over there moves differently, or a natural affinity with the plane keeps them vigorous. It would be cool if whilst adventuring on the normal plane, they aged the same as Elves, also removing their lifespan issue.


----------



## Bagpuss (Nov 28, 2007)

If "Dragonborn are a true breeding race that has nothing to do with humans." and "They [Tieflings] pass for humans from a distance."

What the hell is that wizards type of creature on the cover of the Players Handbook. Because it certainly looks like some race that has something to do with humans, but couldn't pass for a human at a distance.


----------



## Derren (Nov 28, 2007)

As far as I know 4E Tieflings will be humans who in the past somehow stole powers from devils and transformed themselves into a new, self sustaining race called tiefling.
As for their looks, it probably depends on the distance.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Nov 28, 2007)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> If "Dragonborn are a true breeding race that has nothing to do with humans." and "They [Tieflings] pass for humans from a distance."
> 
> What the hell is that wizards type of creature on the cover of the Players Handbook. Because it certainly looks like some race that has something to do with humans, but couldn't pass for a human at a distance.



Look at the next couple of sentences: 


			
				kunadam the Hungarian said:
			
		

> The text says that they have a small hord extending from their brow and a narrow tail. As they grow in power these thing get more pronounced. In the arts they have very pronounced tail and horn.



So, to make a totally arbitrary guess, heroic-level tieflings look quite like humans if they cover up their horns and tail, which won't be hard (long hair, bandanna, loose pants...); at paragon levels, these traits show quite openly (like the PHB cover); at epic levels, no one is going to mistake a tiefling for a human without magical disguise.

Edit:


			
				derren said:
			
		

> As for their looks, it probably depends on the distance.



Makes sense, as well; if they're human-sized and more or less human-coloured, they're going to be hard to tell from humans at longer ranges, whereas you can instantly tell someone is a halfling, a dwarf or a dragonborn. (Elves and eladrin may or may not be easy to tell from humans... maybe the way elves move, who knows; half-elves, you probably need to see up close.)


----------



## Derren (Nov 28, 2007)

Where did you get this quotes from kunadam from?

And this whole horn thing increases my fears again that in 4E all dragons will have ridiculous nose horns....


----------



## Jinete (Nov 28, 2007)

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> So, to make a totally arbitrary guess, heroic-level tieflings look quite like humans if they cover up their horns and tail, which won't be hard (long hair, bandanna, loose pants...); at paragon levels, these traits show quite openly (like the PHB cover); at epic levels, no one is going to mistake a tiefling for a human without magical disguise.




That's a great design idea. It's like
Heroic: 
"I'm just your everyday common human, nothing to see here"

Paragon: 
"Ok, who said that? If the one that called me a freak doesn't step up, the whole village gets it"

Epic:
"Obey your new Tiefling overlords! We are powerful and cool and we have tails!"


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Nov 28, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> Where did you get this quotes from kunadam from?



ENworld front page. 



> And this whole horn thing increases my fears again that in 4E all dragons will have ridiculous nose horns....



Really, why? If the dragonborn were spoke of as having big horns as standard, or with nose horns, then I could see why you'd worry about that. But tieflings have been "horny" ever since they were introduced in the 2e, and horn-headed fiends go way back in history.


----------



## Derren (Nov 28, 2007)

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> Really, why? If the dragonborn were spoke of as having big horns as standard, or with nose horns, then I could see why you'd worry about that. But tieflings have been "horny" ever since they were introduced in the 2e, and horn-headed fiends go way back in history.




Somehow I assumed this was about dragonborn and not about tieflings(probably because the first quote started with dragonborn before switching to tieflings.


----------



## Aristotle (Nov 28, 2007)

I'm torn...

I don't like the idea of the implied setting being too invasive, and the dragonborn fluff mentioned certainly feels that way to me, or to port in races and classes that seem like they should be campaign setting specific.... but at the same time I acknowledge that you can't design in a vacuum, else you'll likely just get boring generic fantasy with no innovation.

At the same time, the fluff completely supports my point of light setting, which features a human city state on grassy plains (also inhabited by dwarves), and vast wetlands where halflings live. My halflings are a little more primitive than the implied merchant halflings, but some do come to the human market to sell or trade pelts, pottery, and so on. I *may* even have a spot for dragonborn in this particular setting, despite my desire to dislike them.


----------



## Stoat (Nov 28, 2007)

Strange thing, I hated the idea of Dragonborn until I saw "lives in the desert."  Now I know what lives in that big blank spot on the eastern edge of my homebrew.  One line of fluff, and I can now tell you everything about the declining Dragonborn Empire of Astar-Bahiti.

As long as the PHB doesn't hardwire too much history and culture into the mechanics, I'm fine with a little implied setting.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Nov 28, 2007)

After reading the snippets, I am glad I preordered the book.  I can't wait to see the art.


----------



## Derren (Nov 28, 2007)

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> After reading the snippets, I am glad I preordered the book.  I can't wait to see the art.




I agree. I can't wait till WotC puts the Art Gallery up


----------



## Bagpuss (Nov 28, 2007)

So their are two tieflings on the front cover of the PHB but no other races? I'm liking that cover less and less. Which is a shame as I like the picture (not a lot, but I don't hate it like others), it just doesn't seem to do a very good job of telling you what the game is about.


----------



## Derren (Nov 28, 2007)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> So their are two tieflings on the front cover of the PHB but no other races? I'm liking that cover less and less. Which is a shame as I like the picture (not a lot, but I don't hate it like others), it just doesn't seem to do a very good job of telling you what the game is about.




Well, technically the 3.X cover told you even less.


----------



## TerraDave (Nov 28, 2007)

*On rivers valleys and "cleared" forests:*

My point above is that humans in the "Race and Classes" world are not going there...halflings have got the rivers (all the pyramids and zigaruts will be built to smaller scale), elves the forest.

Oh, and if the plains are too dry: Dragonborn.


----------



## Guild Goodknife (Nov 28, 2007)

kunadam said:
			
		

> Here again I start with a disclaimer. The book present the state of the art as of Aug 2007. There could be changes.Unified progression of defense, BAB and saves. A 10th level character will have +5 of those (thus +0.5 / level). Even at 1st level classes can significantly alter the base value. Class abilities modify them further.Cleric
> All classes will get some self-healing power (already known). Cleric enhance the self-healing capabilities of nearby allies.
> Bigger spell will be rituals (raise the dead for example). Rituals are different from spells (as of how I do not know).
> Summoning spells are removed along with alignment specific ones (at least for now).
> ...






			
				kunadam said:
			
		

> These classes are mentioned is 3-4 paragraphs, it is not a confirmation that they are going to be in the PHB, just that they were experimenting with them (for some, like the paladin, warlord and the ranger, we know that they are going to be in the PHB).
> 
> Paladin: Still have smite ability but there are more types of smites (different form of attacks). Paladins and fighters are both defenders, but paladins rely on divine powers. There are evil paladins.
> 
> ...




let's talk about the new stuff! 
I'm really excited for the new sorcerer! And the barbarian with the bite attack sounds freaky but in a cool way!


----------



## Aage (Nov 28, 2007)

kunadam said:


> I hope this will be changed, how would two-weapon fighting figure to this?




My guess is that two-weapon fighting is ranger-stuff...



> Paladin: Still have smite ability but there are more types of smites (different form of attacks). Paladins and fighters are both defenders, but paladins rely on divine powers. There are evil paladins.




Evil paladins is a good thing, though I generally dislike paladins.



> Sorcerer: Make it more distant from the wizard. They barely control their spells, but unleash enough energy every time that some remains around them. For example after a fireball, they are cloaked in fire which sears enemies nearby.




Love that description of the fireball remaining around him  I think I'm gonna lika the sorcerer when it is released.



> Barbarian: The ability to rage is the centerpiece ability of this class. There are different rages. There is a mention of a “lightning panther strike” that allow movement and multiple attack. Barbarians are more feral, and bite attack was mentioned




Dislike the name, love everything else



> Druid: Their spellcasting takes second seat. The primary ability is wildshape, which they can do a lot more often, but only shapes they have picked (like spells). They have some nature related spell to canst when in humanoid form.




Hopefully spellcasting isn't to reduced, as I'd like to be able to do a nature caster without shaping.



> Bard: Gets it power from otherwordly patrons (?). Its powers focuses on illusions and confusions, so that enemies hinder themselves. They can also inspire their allies.




Otherwordly = Fey?


----------



## Shortman McLeod (Nov 28, 2007)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> If "Dragonborn are a true breeding race that has nothing to do with humans." and "They [Tieflings] pass for humans from a distance."
> 
> What the hell is that wizards type of creature on the cover of the Players Handbook. Because it certainly looks like some race that has something to do with humans, but couldn't pass for a human at a distance.




Tieflings can pass for humans at a distance, as long as they wrap a huge turban around their horns.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 28, 2007)

> Druid: Their spellcasting takes second seat. The primary ability is wildshape, which they can do a lot more often, but only shapes they have picked (like spells). They have some nature related spell to canst when in humanoid form.




YES!



> Bard: Gets it power from otherwordly patrons (?). Its powers focuses on illusions and confusions, so that enemies hinder themselves. They can also inspire their allies.




Otherworldly patrons?  Well, ok.  I never liked the 3e bard, so I look forwards to seeing whether I'll like it now.



> Monk: Still in the design stage, but it will be a mobile striker.




If I can run at high speeds across the battlefield and jumpkick an ogre in the face, I will be happy.


----------



## Bishmon (Nov 28, 2007)

Sorcerer sounds really cool. A lot of potential there.

Druid, though, was disappointing. I have zero desire to play a wildshaping druid, but a crazy desire to play one that focuses on spells that unleash nature's fury. I was hoping with 4E, there'd be more of a choice in regard to whether a particular druid focused on wildshaping or on spells, but instead, they're apparently moving more towards just wildshaping. Like I said, disappointing.

I feel a little better about dragonborn now that they're lizardfolk and not dragonborn. I still don't like them as a core race, and I'm not sure if I'll use them or not, but at least I don't have the desire to rip those pages out of the upcoming PHB.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Nov 28, 2007)

> Bard: Gets it power from otherwordly patrons (?). Its powers focuses on illusions and confusions, so that enemies hinder themselves. They can also inspire their allies.




Otherworldy = Muse ??

I am starting to like this, though it looks like there are some limitations being placed on the individual classes (regressing back towards 1E/2E) such as fighters being two-handed or sword&board.  Although rangers had this with two-weapon or archer, there weren't limits on the feats.  

I wonder if a fighter would simply dip into ranger for two-weapon fighting. In that case, I wonder if there is less long-term penalty to multiclassing or dipping.

It looks like a Conan-type PC would be a fighter/ranger/barbarian/rogue type (less feral than a straight barbarian).


----------



## Rechan (Nov 28, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> What if my world has no forests, do I have to remove elves? And it also has no mountains, so no dwarves?
> What if the campaign settings consist out of 5 ft. wide floating islands in the middle of nowhere? Do I have to remove all races which can't fly and are bigger than medium size?



So you must hate this, right?


> Most elves live in woodland clans numbering less than two hundred souls. Their well-hidden villages blend into the trees, doing little harm to the forest. They hunt game, gather food, and grew vegetables, and their skill at magic allow them to support themselves simply without the need for clearing and plowing land. Their contact with outsiders is usually though some few elves make a good living trading finely worked elven clothes and crafts for the metals that elves have no interest in mining.
> 
> Elves encountered in human lands are commonly wandering minstrels, favored artists, or sages. Human nobles compete for the services of elf instructors, who teach swordplay to their children.



That comes right out of the 3.5 PHB, page 15.

Can we please stop acting like this is the first time the PHB has ever told us more than just mechanics?


----------



## Klaus (Nov 28, 2007)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> *On rivers valleys and "cleared" forests:*
> 
> My point above is that humans in the "Race and Classes" world are not going there...halflings have got the rivers (all the pyramids and zigaruts will be built to smaller scale), elves the forest.
> 
> Oh, and if the plains are too dry: Dragonborn.



 No, no.

The humans still build those cities and ziggurats in Mesopotamia. But they rely on the barge-dwelling halfllings to ferry goods up and down the Tigris and Euphrates.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Nov 28, 2007)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> I have zero desire to play a wildshaping druid, but a crazy desire to play one that focuses on spells that unleash nature's fury.



Isn't that exactly what wizards do, with fireball and lightning bolt? Best fit for that in 4e would probably be a wizard or sorcerer.


----------



## Rechan (Nov 28, 2007)

They're going to have a _Barbarian_ class? But Barbarian isn't a _class_, it's a cultural slur! Do we need villager and city dweller classes now? Barbarian as a class can be taken by anyone, but it has an implied setting of being illiterate and primitive! 

Oh wait, that's 3e. So that's acceptable. Sorry, move along.


----------



## Rechan (Nov 28, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Isn't that exactly what wizards do, with fireball and lightning bolt? Best fit for that in 4e would probably be a wizard or sorcerer.



Except that wizards can't make volcanos erupt, cast _Entangle_, summon avalanches, have the animals of the forest converge on the enemy, etc etc.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 28, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> They're going to have a _Barbarian_ class? But Barbarian isn't a _class_, it's a cultural slur! Do we need villager and city dweller classes now? Barbarian as a class can be taken by anyone, but it has an implied setting of being illiterate and primitive!
> 
> Oh wait, that's 3e. So that's acceptable. Sorry, move along.




Did anyone say they liked the Barbarian writeup exactly as it was? I thought it was almost universally accepted that something was not quite right with the Barbarian.


----------



## Bishmon (Nov 28, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Isn't that exactly what wizards do, with fireball and lightning bolt? Best fit for that in 4e would probably be a wizard or sorcerer.



There's always going to be some overlap among spellcasters. A druid's spellcasting, though, should encompass much more of nature than just producing a lightning bolt or using a spell that has fire.

I just think there's a lot of potential for a druid that is focused solely on spellcasting. Using natural elements to hurt and/or hamper foes, controlling plants to entangle or strangle enemies, allying one's self with animals and fey to get information or to fight alongside them, even causing or stopping natural disasters. Plus, with the Feywild, there's a whole new possibility of druidic applications. The eladrin's short-range teleport-like effect by moving through the Feywild, turning one's self invisible by moving to the Feywild, or possibly allying with creatures native to the Feywild who are capable of damaging enemies on the material plane, sort of similar to ethereal creatures.

It might be possible to file the serial numbers off a 4E wizard to do most of this stuff but there's too much potential for both flavor and mechanics to limit a druid to being a repurposed wizard.


----------



## Rechan (Nov 28, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Did anyone say they liked the Barbarian writeup exactly as it was? I thought it was almost universally accepted that something was not quite right with the Barbarian.



And yet there was no shriekng about the Barbarian being setting specific flavor and WotC forcing them to shove it into their campaign setting.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 28, 2007)

I think I was right on the druid earlier.

The druid had to get cut up a bit.  Wildshape is cool enough to support an entire class.  Druid spellcasting is cool enough to support an entire class.  Giving them both to the same class is too much.  So you have to either nerf wildshape and give it to a spellcaster, or you have to nerf spellcasting and give it to a wildshaper, or you have to do both and create two classes.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 28, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> And yet there was no shriekng about the Barbarian being setting specific flavor and WotC forcing them to shove it into their campaign setting.




The Barbarian is legacy, which means it's hard to muster about a very fiery outrage, just sad exasperation.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Nov 28, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> So you have to either nerf wildshape and give it to a spellcaster, or you have to nerf spellcasting and give it to a wildshaper, or you have to do both and create two classes.



Or just ratchet up the other classes a bit to match it


----------



## Bishmon (Nov 28, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I think I was right on the druid earlier.
> 
> The druid had to get cut up a bit.  Wildshape is cool enough to support an entire class.  Druid spellcasting is cool enough to support an entire class.  Giving them both to the same class is too much.  So you have to either nerf wildshape and give it to a spellcaster, or you have to nerf spellcasting and give it to a wildshaper, or you have to do both and create two classes.



Or give them the option of having one or the other and letting that particular druid choose. I think that's better than dividing them into completely different classes called "druid" and "um, druid II".


----------



## Doug McCrae (Nov 28, 2007)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> There's always going to be some overlap among spellcasters. A druid's spellcasting, though, should encompass much more of nature than just producing a lightning bolt or using a spell that has fire.



I really like the look of the 4e druid because it focuses more on what is unique to the class - wildshape - rather than the spellcasting which currently has a lot of overlap with wizards and clerics.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 28, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> They're going to have a _Barbarian_ class? But Barbarian isn't a _class_, it's a cultural slur!



You are aware, aren't you, that this is an oft-heard criticism of the barbarian class in 3E.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 28, 2007)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> Or give them the option of having one or the other and letting that particular druid choose. I think that's better than dividing them into completely different classes called "druid" and "um, druid II".




I don't.  A melee combatant who turns into animals and mauls people, and a spellcaster who summons other creatures and elements to fight for him, are different enough mechanically that they need separate classes to do them justice.


----------



## Mark Plemmons (Nov 28, 2007)

Stone Dog said:
			
		

> So humans correspond to White, dwarves to Red, elves to Green.
> 
> Dragonborn may be a red/white mix, halflings sound blue/green and tieflings may be some sort of black?
> 
> ...




Yeah, that's what immediately sprang to my mindn too.  I won't be at all surprised to see this sort of Magic/D&D combo appear in a future supplement/miniatures line/etc.


----------



## Rechan (Nov 28, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> You are aware, aren't you, that this is an oft-heard criticism of the barbarian class in 3E.



Yes, I am. But I've also never seen it spawn "WotC is pushing their setting on my game".

WotC all ready has. They put monks and barbarians and bards in your game. And elves, and dwarves, and the 3.5 PHB says elves live in forests.


----------



## Rechan (Nov 28, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> The Barbarian is legacy, which means it's hard to muster about a very fiery outrage, just sad exasperation.



Ah, so it's just been around long enough.

Does this mean that by 6e, Dragonborn and Tieflings will have enough legacy to be okay?


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 28, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Ah, so it's just been around long enough.
> 
> Does this mean that by 6e, Dragonborn and Tieflings will have enough legacy to be okay?




No. As I stated, the 3.5 Barbarian is already not okay, it's just not new.


----------



## fuindordm (Nov 28, 2007)

Thoughts on the new info:

The bard is a common archetype in many legends. I could live with fey or divine patrons for bards, but I would prefer it if they had their own unique power source.  I'm disappointed that they're still going to be illusionists, however.

I don't think barbarian rage is enough to build a class around. It could easily be a (small) talent tree available to fighters or rangers.

I always thought that druid magic had a delicious flavor all its own.  And do players really choose druid for the wildshape? It's a cool ability, but honestly I wouldn't miss it.  It's just as cool to see the druid summon a giant eagle and ride it over the chasm, or summon the wolves to defend her home.


----------



## Howndawg (Nov 28, 2007)

Singing Smurf said:
			
		

> @grimslade: Thank you!
> 
> I'll have to set aside a few minutes today to pout about my beloved Orcs being displaced by these newfangled dragon-thingies.
> 
> It looks like _both_ of the new races are on the cover of the PHB: Tiefling Fighter and Dragonborn Wizard perhaps.





Get sucked away from the boards by Mass Effect for a week and look what happens.  Dragonborn Wizard?  Howndawg nailed it first, thank you very much.  Okay, I thought it was a half-dragon.  But that's still pretty damn close.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 28, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Yes, I am. But I've also never seen it spawn "WotC is pushing their setting on my game".



Barbarians are setting-independent.  They're crazy guys that hit things.  That's hardly genre-specific.  The problem is that they were saddled with some unfortunate baggage.  The notion that you _need_ to have an uncivilized culture somewhere on your map in order to spawn barbarians was not well-received.  But it wasn't a particular culture, just a generic "barbarians are here" sign.

You never heard "WotC is pushing their setting on my game," but you did hear "Barbarians?  More like berzerkers, and why do they have to be illiterate, anyway?"

At least they no longer had to eschew magic and magic-users.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 28, 2007)

fuindordm said:
			
		

> I always thought that druid magic had a delicious flavor all its own.  *And do players really choose druid for the wildshape?* It's a cool ability, but honestly I wouldn't miss it.  It's just as cool to see the druid summon a giant eagle and ride it over the chasm, or summon the wolves to defend her home.




Yes.

There are basically three ways to go with a druid.

1) Shapeshifter.  Ideally this would be a character who mostly attacks in melee, meaning they should probably look a bit like the shapeshifting druid variant from the PHBII so that their ability scores remain relevant while they're shifted, since that's the time their ability scores are most important.
2) Natural spellcaster.  This is the old guy with a staff who calls down lightning and storms on his foes.  Ideally he'd look a bit like a wizard.
3) Natural cleric style spellcaster.  This is the younger guy (or girl) with the sickle, the armor, the shield, and some animal allies.  This person casts support spells on their allies and their animals, then chops you up with a farming implement.

Each one of these is basically a different style of play, and should probably be separated out by class.  Each one's method of attacking is different.  Each one has different armor expectations.  Each one has different abilities they'd want to choose to support their primary means of engaging the enemy.

It seems awkward to split the druid up into three pieces, because historically it has been one.  But mechanically, this seems like the best choice.  In 4e speak, you've got a Defender, a Controller, and a Leader up there, and they're all going to want different powers, with very little overlap.

This is why I'm hoping for a Book of the Wild or something.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Nov 28, 2007)

fuindordm said:
			
		

> I don't think barbarian rage is enough to build a class around. It could easily be a (small) talent tree available to fighters or rangers.



I disagree... you just need to do interesting things with it.


----------



## fuindordm (Nov 28, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Yes.
> 
> 2) Natural spellcaster.  This is the old guy with a staff who calls down lightning and storms on his foes.  Ideally he'd look a bit like a wizard.





Except that he could cast some healing spells, summon animals to do his bidding, change the weather, and alter the terrain over wide areas--none of which are usually done by wizards. I'm not saying they *can't*, but most wizards do go the flash-bang route and ignore these areas.

I come from the perspective that a distinctive spell list makes for a distinctive class.  I'm quite happy that they appear to be making room for psionics by limiting the mental magic available to wizards.  D&D has so many spells, there is easily enough room for the druid.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Nov 28, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Barbarians are setting-independent.  They're crazy guys that hit things.  That's hardly genre-specific.  The problem is that they were saddled with some unfortunate baggage.  The notion that you _need_ to have an uncivilized culture somewhere on your map in order to spawn barbarians was not well-received.  But it wasn't a particular culture, just a generic "barbarians are here" sign.



I've always had the idea for Urban Barbarians, tough street kids who grew up in ghettos and learned to rage through street fighting and gang warfare.


----------



## Bishmon (Nov 28, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I don't.  A melee combatant who turns into animals and mauls people, and a spellcaster who summons other creatures and elements to fight for him, are different enough mechanically that they need separate classes to do them justice.



Ok. That would fine, I suppose. 

Unfortunately, I'm thinking the odds of a spellcasting druid being its own class, with a well-designed and mostly unique spell list, are pretty low. I don't think 3E druids' spells got the proper attention, and if they're talking about taking the druid in 4E and trimming down his spellcasting to focus on wildshaping, I'm thinking it's looking like druidic spellcasting will be taking even more of a backseat, which would be a shame.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Nov 28, 2007)

fuindordm said:
			
		

> Except that he could cast some healing spells, summon animals to do his bidding, change the weather, and alter the terrain over wide areas--none of which are usually done by wizards. I'm not saying they *can't*, but most wizards do go the flash-bang route and ignore these areas.



These are the things the wizard can't do _in 3E D&D_. In the much wider scope of myth, folktale, and fantasy, those things are pretty much the sole domain of wizards.

Even shapechanging into animals is a common power given to wizards. Merlin from Disney's _The Sword in the Stone_ and the wizards from the classic folktale _The School of Salamanca_ are good examples.

As a whole, the 3E Druid is pretty much a class caught right in the middle of being the wise old hermit (the classic wizard), and the religious leader of the community (the classic cleric). Pretty much everything the Druid is can be replicated with just some flavor elements and the Wizard or Cleric classes.


----------



## Bishmon (Nov 28, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I really like the look of the 4e druid because it focuses more on what is unique to the class - wildshape - rather than the spellcasting which currently has a lot of overlap with wizards and clerics.



Why not make a druid's spellcasting more unique then?

-They could be the only spellcasters that can magically affect animals in any way, whether charming, communicating, summoning, etc. 

-They could also be the sole users of spells that deal with weather like controlling weather, summoning violent storms, manipulating the winds, etc. The wizard could create a highly damaging cone of cold, but the druid is the one that could summon a violent snowstorm in a medium-sized area that would slightly hurt enemies, slow their movement, and obscure their vision. 

-The druid could also be the only class with access to spells regarding fey and the Feywild. It seems like a natural fit.

-Spells involving trees and plants could be expanded on. Entangle is a nice unique spell early on for a druid, but maybe later on he gets access to greater versions that cover a larger area, affect more creatures, cause damage due to strangulation, or inflict poison effects from poisonous barbs. If there's a half-dozen different wizard spells dealing with an invisible hand, there certainly can be a half-dozen druid spells that involve effective use of plants to entangle enemies.

-And then there's a ton of unexplored area regarding nature spirits and the effects a druid could cause using them. They could be used as various unique buffs/debuffs for friends/enemies.

Combine all of this together, and a spellcasting druid has incredible potential to be an awesome controller, and the class would be very iconic, very flavorful, and it would clearly have its own niche without really taking anything important from anyone else's niche.


----------



## Abstraction (Nov 28, 2007)

Sounds like you'll then have the problem that the Druid had in 2E, namely that he had nothing he could contribute while in the dungeon.


----------



## Mercule (Nov 28, 2007)

fuindordm said:
			
		

> I always thought that druid magic had a delicious flavor all its own.  And do players really choose druid for the wildshape? It's a cool ability, but honestly I wouldn't miss it.  It's just as cool to see the druid summon a giant eagle and ride it over the chasm, or summon the wolves to defend her home.




The main reason I still allow druids IMC is because I like having a shape-shifting class.  I like the idea of animistic priests, but it really seems like (depending on paradigm) those should be buildable as either clerics or wizards.


----------



## Aage (Nov 28, 2007)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> -The druid could also be the only class with access to spells regarding fey and the Feywild. It seems like a natural fit.




Seems likely to me that the Feral Warlock will also have these kinds of powers. Actually, the feral warlock may actually be the nature spellcaster I'm looking for


----------



## Aldarc (Nov 28, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> These are the things the wizard can't do _in 3E D&D_. In the much wider scope of myth, folktale, and fantasy, those things are pretty much the sole domain of wizards.



In myth, folktale, and fantasy there is really no difference between cleric, druid, wizard, or sorcerer; there was merely the mage. One nation's cleric was another nation's sorcerer. Merlin was simultaneously described as a druid, necromancer, and a wizard. The distinction in D&D between these titles is arbitrary and built upon the back of tradition.  

In regard to the druid though, I have no problem with the spellcasting being minimized as long as these type of nature spells remain (alter weather, entangle, etc.) which emphasize that the druid's power is tied to nature-caster.


----------



## davethegame (Nov 28, 2007)

My current campaign has both a Cleric of Obad-Hai and a Druid. I like the idea of Druid being about Wildshaping, and hope that the traditional Druid spells get moved to Cleric. Actually I hope that there are a bunch of different options for Clerics to make each Cleric of a different god feel different in play, not just "Heal/Buff vs. Inflict/Buff"


----------



## Bishmon (Nov 28, 2007)

davethegame said:
			
		

> My current campaign has both a Cleric of Obad-Hai and a Druid. I like the idea of Druid being about Wildshaping, and hope that the traditional Druid spells get moved to Cleric. Actually I hope that there are a bunch of different options for Clerics to make each Cleric of a different god feel different in play, not just "Heal/Buff vs. Inflict/Buff"



That's kind of what I'm hoping to be my consolation prize at this point. If they're going to move the druid towards wildshaping, I really hope a lot of interesting nature spells make a mass exodus to the cleric's spell list. I don't think it'd be the ideal way I'd like to see it handled, but I'd still probably be pretty happy with it.


----------



## Xethreau (Nov 28, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I think I was right on the druid earlier.
> 
> The druid had to get cut up a bit.  Wildshape is cool enough to support an entire class.  Druid spellcasting is cool enough to support an entire class.  Giving them both to the same class is too much.  So you have to either nerf wildshape and give it to a spellcaster, or you have to nerf spellcasting and give it to a wildshaper, or you have to do both and create two classes.



Didn't you read any of that?


> Their *spellcasting takes second seat*. The *primary ability is wildshape*, which they can do a lot more often, but only *shapes they have picked (like spells)*. They have some nature related spell to canst when in humanoid form.



Unlike 3e, all classes will have lots of choices.  If power selection is anything like Saga Edition's talent selection, then specific powers do not come hardwired into the class (with few exceptions, including Jedi and Lightsabers).  If this is the case, then someone could be a druid completely dedicated to wild shapes, or one completely dedicated to nature magic, or one could be both.  Balance here will probably lie in opportunity costs.

Besides, having to pick your shapes like spells sure sounds like a nerf to me.


----------



## Wormwood (Nov 28, 2007)

RyukenAngel said:
			
		

> Besides, having to pick your shapes like spells sure sounds like a nerf to me.





If that nerf looks anything like PHB2 druid shapeshifting, then _bring on the nerf. _


----------



## Xethreau (Nov 28, 2007)

Also, people people people, that is NOT a dragonborn on the cover! Besides *not* fitting the discription of what dragonborn look like at all, it is also almost certainly a tiefling.  The female warrior is likely to be a human.

However, I hate that cover, so I hope it changes XD

-edit-


			
				Wormwood said:
			
		

> If that nerf looks anything like PHB2 druid shapeshifting, then _bring on the nerf. _




Possibly.  I could see both "Shape of the Preditor" and "Shape of the Cheetah/Wolf/Mountain Goat/etc."


----------



## Aldarc (Nov 28, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Barbarians are setting-independent.  They're crazy guys that hit things.  That's hardly genre-specific.  The problem is that they were saddled with some unfortunate baggage.  The notion that you _need_ to have an uncivilized culture somewhere on your map in order to spawn barbarians was not well-received.  But it wasn't a particular culture, just a generic "barbarians are here" sign.
> 
> You never heard "WotC is pushing their setting on my game," but you did hear "Barbarians?  More like berzerkers, and why do they have to be illiterate, anyway?"
> 
> At least they no longer had to eschew magic and magic-users.



So many problems with the flavor of the Barbarian could be solved by simply renaming them Berserkers.


----------



## captaincursor (Nov 28, 2007)

Aldarc said:
			
		

> So many problems with the flavor of the Barbarian could be solved by simply renaming them Berserkers.




Or Conans.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 28, 2007)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> Huh? An agile and nimble elf is equally suitable to a forest, a ragged mountain or a swamp. So why put the in a forest? Why not have the setting define where the elf should go?
> 
> Let's take the dragonborn example. The information we have says they're decendents from an ancient civilisation of the desert. So what it my campaign setting doesn't have ancient civilisations? What if it doesn't have deserts? Do I have to remove dragonkin?
> 
> ...





Why would you design your campaign to void the Dragonborn?

My new take on it is WoTC is convinced that people should not convert from 3e to 4e and that means game systems and campaigns.

If you home brew, add it in or brew another. 

Not necessarily my take on it, but thinking this way, I understand it a bit more.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 28, 2007)

Personally, I welcome our new Soletaken and D'ivers masters!


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 28, 2007)

Mark Plemmons said:
			
		

> Yeah, that's what immediately sprang to my mindn too.  I won't be at all surprised to see this sort of Magic/D&D combo appear in a future supplement/miniatures line/etc.




Hell, I'd love to see a d20 Heroscope one with the Marmo in it. Love those dudes!


----------



## Reaper Steve (Nov 29, 2007)

If there ever was a time, it is NOW to rename the 'Barbarian' to 'Berserker.' 

That short little blurb about them makes me think the Barbarian will be even closer to a Warhammer Trollslayer (or the 2e Battle Rager kit)... and that's fine by me!

But cripes, CHANGE THE NAME!


----------



## Zurai (Nov 29, 2007)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> Druid, though, was disappointing. I have zero desire to play a wildshaping druid, but a crazy desire to play one that focuses on spells that unleash nature's fury. I was hoping with 4E, there'd be more of a choice in regard to whether a particular druid focused on wildshaping or on spells, but instead, they're apparently moving more towards just wildshaping. Like I said, disappointing.




I'm betting that's because "Spellcasting Druid = Cleric".


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Nov 29, 2007)

captaincursor said:
			
		

> Or Conans.



Darth Conans.


----------



## Reynard (Nov 29, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Why would you design your campaign to void the Dragonborn?
> 
> My new take on it is WoTC is convinced that people should not convert from 3e to 4e and that means game systems and campaigns.
> 
> ...




I figure the ultimate litmus test of whether an edition can be considered "still D&D" or not relates directly to whether a group can continue to play in their preferred "vanilla plus toppings" homebrew campaign setting or not.  There are folks that have playing in the same world across decades and multiple editions.  If 4E suddenly makes it impossible to continue to do so (without huge amounts of works or waiting 3 years for supplements) it fails the test.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Nov 29, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> I figure the ultimate litmus test of whether an edition can be considered "still D&D" or not relates directly to whether a group can continue to play in their preferred "vanilla plus toppings" homebrew campaign setting or not.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Flobby (Nov 29, 2007)

*druids and bards...*

hmmm... I was kind of hoping they'd ditch the druid for a more variable 'Shaman' and the Bard for a 'Noble.' Those are two classes that D&D has never done (or done well, as far as I know). Well they still have time  

Maybe they should make two classes: A Shapeshifter and a spell-casting Shaman.
Or they could make shapeshifting as part of the Barbarian class even...(You know a totem warrior of sorts).
I never realy got the Bard... The only reason it was cool was that it let you be sort of fighter-mage guy. Seems like they could fill the same niche better with a Noble class.

As for Barbarians, whatever you call the class it seems to fill a niche in fantasy that differes from the fighter and ranger/scout. The big primitive beastial brute (remember this is fantasy! as long a we don't apply it to the real world I don't think it has anything to do with cultural prejudice) are pretty common aren't they? You know Conan and Conan... nothing else comes to mind right now.


----------



## Mad Mac (Nov 29, 2007)

> The big primitive beastial brute (remember this is fantasy! as long a we don't apply it to the real world I don't think it has anything to do with cultural prejudice) are pretty common aren't they? You know Conan and Conan... nothing else comes to mind right now.




  Tarzan. The new Barbarian sounds like it could make a really cool Tarzan. Personally, I'm really digging the new class descriptions, even ideas I thought would be hard to translate to 4th edition, like Sorcerers.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 29, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> I figure the ultimate litmus test of whether an edition can be considered "still D&D" or not relates directly to whether a group can continue to play in their preferred "vanilla plus toppings" homebrew campaign setting or not.  There are folks that have playing in the same world across decades and multiple editions.  If 4E suddenly makes it impossible to continue to do so (without huge amounts of works or waiting 3 years for supplements) it fails the test.




Unfortunately, pretty much every edition of D&D fails that test.

oD&D -> AD&D is the only one that really qualifies.

BECM D&D goes on a really divergent path.

AD&D 1E->2E removes half-orcs, assassins, monks, demons, did weird things to the Ranger, etc.

AD&D 2E->D&D 3E had vastly different interpretations of various classes and races...

Cheers!


----------



## Atlatl Jones (Nov 29, 2007)

Reaper Steve said:
			
		

> If there ever was a time, it is NOW to rename the 'Barbarian' to 'Berserker.'
> 
> That short little blurb about them makes me think the Barbarian will be even closer to a Warhammer Trollslayer (or the 2e Battle Rager kit)... and that's fine by me!
> 
> But cripes, CHANGE THE NAME!



QFMFT!  The name isn't that important a sacred cow that it needs to be kept.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 29, 2007)

Atlatl Jones said:
			
		

> QFMFT!  The name isn't that important a sacred cow that it needs to be kept.




In fact, in BECMI, "barbarians" were NPCs and Berserkers were 1+1 HD humanoids.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Nov 29, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, pretty much every edition of D&D fails that test.



Yeah.  You can talk about vanilla and toppings all you want, between all of the arguments that have already been made about whether 4E is saving or destroying the world, it should be pretty clear at this point that people can't agree on what parts are the vanilla and what parts are the toppings.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 29, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, pretty much every edition of D&D fails that test.
> 
> oD&D -> AD&D is the only one that really qualifies.
> 
> ...




Wouldn't say that, personally. I've taken my players through the Known World in Basic D&D, AD&D 2E and D&D 3E most recently....and so far, it always worked well.

Cheers!


----------



## Reynard (Nov 29, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> AD&D 1E->2E removes half-orcs, assassins, monks, demons, did weird things to the Ranger, etc.




I disagree that this is a game breaker (or world breaker) as the systems are so close that you can use 1E stuff with 2E pretty easily, and vice versa.



> AD&D 2E->D&D 3E had vastly different interpretations of various classes and races...




But all the sacred cows were atill there and while some mechanical systems changed a great deal, core 3E hewed very close to the "typical D&D" implied setting, which is the important part.  4E's flavor re-invention is going to be a lot harder on existing worlds -- published or homebrewed -- than any mechanical changes it implements.


----------



## Aeolius (Nov 29, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> There are folks that have playing in the same world across decades and multiple editions.  If 4E suddenly makes it impossible to continue to do so (without huge amounts of works or waiting 3 years for supplements) it fails the test.



   Bingo!



			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, pretty much every edition of D&D fails that test.
> oD&D -> AD&D is the only one that really qualifies.
> BECM D&D goes on a really divergent path.
> AD&D 1E->2E removes half-orcs, assassins, monks, demons, did weird things to the Ranger, etc.
> AD&D 2E->D&D 3E had vastly different interpretations of various classes and races...



   You forgot about leap-grognards. For those of us who skipped 2e, jumping from 1e to 3e was relatively painless.


----------



## Derren (Nov 29, 2007)

Not to forget that in the 2E->3E transition suddenly sorcerers appeared (or existing wizards suddenly became sorcerers) that isn't much different from Tieflings and Dragonborn becoming more prominent now.


----------



## Mad Mac (Nov 29, 2007)

Another update from the Wizard boards, this one with Rogues and Warlocks...(and lots of general mechanical tidbits mixed in)


> Rogues
> 
> Sneak attack is easier. Apart from flanking, some spell and special abilities will also give combat advantage to rogues. Combat advantage is the name for the state when a rogue can sneak attack a foe. Immunity to sneak attack is nearly gone. Immunities are almost gone from 4th ed, replaced by damage threshold (something like DR).
> Rogues have follow-up attack after successful attack (extra damage or penalties).
> ...


----------



## Simon Marks (Nov 29, 2007)

Mad Mac said:
			
		

> Another update from the Wizard boards, this one with Rogues and Warlocks...(and lots of general mechanical tidbits mixed in)
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Good, Warlocks have shaken off their 'Pact with Evil' route and can make pacts with other things.

Stars?

_Stars_?


----------



## Aage (Nov 29, 2007)

> Rogues
> 
> Sneak attack is easier. Apart from flanking, some spell and special abilities will also give combat advantage to rogues. Combat advantage is the name for the state when a rogue can sneak attack a foe.



So, combat advantage seems to be a new word for flat-footed and similar conditions, like flank.



> Immunity to sneak attack is nearly gone. Immunities are almost gone from 4th ed, replaced by damage threshold (something like DR).



A damage threshold? Interesting 



> Listen & Spot; Move silently & Hide; Open lock and Sleight of Hand is combined. Knowledge (Arcana), Spellcraft and Read Magic is combined to Arcane. Approximately the skill list is cut in half.



Good.



> Trapfinding is a feat (rogues have it by default), but others can have it too.



I'd like to see trapfinding incorporated in search/disable device, rather than as a feat. And Rogues MUST have it? Me no like.



> They make pacts with devils, feys, the starts, elemental powers. Their initial pact determines a large part of their powers. There are four types of it: Infernal, Fey, Vestige and Star.



This seems to be old, now changed, stuff.



> Primary attack is eldritch blast and soul ruin.



Same sentiment as rogue must have trapfinding. No powers should be pre-chosen IMO.



> Invocation can summon.



Summons are present 



> Curses are an integral part of your power. Curses are associated with your pact. They are per encounter damage dealing / crippling powers. Cursed creatures are easier to damage with your blast or soul ruin. When a cursed creature is dropped to 0 hp, you gain a powerful follow up attack against nearby foes.



Sounds cool



> As for alignment, most creatures and PC will be unaligned.



This was suspected, right?  Good thing IMO


----------



## Wormwood (Nov 29, 2007)

Rogues look much more useful in combat

Skills FINALLY getting a much needed simplification (18 is still a little high, though. They could probably have knocked 'em down to 10 or so like I did a few years back). 

Alignment is MOSTLY gone? Good enough for me. 

Once again 4e presents a sweet combination of the way I _already _ play the game mixed with how I _would like _ to play the game.


----------



## Aristotle (Nov 29, 2007)

I don't know that I get "stars" but I'll wait for an explanation...

Interesting that they can align with Fey, and elemental is mentioned in there... making them possibly fit both the fey inspired caster and elementalist people were looking for. The only non-astral sea realm they can't align with seems to be the shadowfell. The completist in me iswn't happy about that, but I guess they wanted to leave that connection open for a possible necromancer class later down the road.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 29, 2007)

Mad Mac said:
			
		

> Another update from the Wizard boards, this one with Rogues and Warlocks...(and lots of general mechanical tidbits mixed in)




I like what I read in there about the Warlocks...sounds like a damn flavourful class, and loaded with plenty of different options depending on whom they started making deals with.  I wonder how much it will take to translate it back to something 3E-ish.


----------



## fuindordm (Nov 29, 2007)

Mad Mac said:
			
		

> Another update from the Wizard boards, this one with Rogues and Warlocks...(and lots of general mechanical tidbits mixed in)





Wait... so we have _three_ flavors of arcane caster???

Wizard = academic scholar
Sorcerer = instinctive magic (wild mage?)
Warlock = pact magic

I actually quite like the sound of that, and the Star Warlock has me especially curious.

Ben


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Nov 29, 2007)

As a DM and homebrewer who doesn't consider a world completed without a zodiac, I'd like to say the Star Warlock makes my geekness swell.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 29, 2007)

Are we certain that the Star Warlock is up to date?  When was the information in this book finalized, compared to when WOTC last released information about the Warlock?

I don't know enough about WOTC's policies to know whether they'd tease us by mentioning only some of the types of warlocks, then actually writing more.


----------



## Aeolius (Nov 29, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> I'd like to say the Star Warlock makes my geekness swell.




Granted, you have to run around collecting stars to place in the Star Pocket of your sentient talking Backpack of Holding.


----------



## Maggan (Nov 29, 2007)

fuindordm said:
			
		

> I actually quite like the sound of that, and the Star Warlock has me especially curious.




I can't wait for the companion classes:

Empire Strikes Backlock and Return of the Jedilock!

/M


----------



## fuindordm (Nov 29, 2007)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> Granted, you have to run around collecting stars to place in the Star Pocket of your sentient talking Backpack of Holding.




Oh, you're evil.

"When I was a girl I made a pact with the stars. Now _you _must fulfill my debt!"


----------



## Sonny (Nov 29, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Are we certain that the Star Warlock is up to date?  When was the information in this book finalized, compared to when WOTC last released information about the Warlock?
> 
> I don't know enough about WOTC's policies to know whether they'd tease us by mentioning only some of the types of warlocks, then actually writing more.



The book was finished in August. The warlock article was October, so it seems like it may have changed to just three choices for pacts.


----------



## Aeolius (Nov 29, 2007)

Sonny said:
			
		

> ...it seems like it may have changed to just three choices for pacts.




Just as well, considering where Star Warlocks derive their power:


----------



## Ahglock (Nov 29, 2007)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> Granted, you have to run around collecting stars to place in the Star Pocket of your sentient talking Backpack of Holding.




Some would say my greatest flaw is collecting to many stars, I'm tenacious .


----------



## Atlatl Jones (Nov 29, 2007)

Sonny said:
			
		

> The book was finished in August. The warlock article was October, so it seems like it may have changed to just three choices for pacts.



They may have decided to keep one of the sources of pacts back to release in a future supplement.  Or maybe they combined the stars and vestiges pacts.


----------



## Li Shenron (Nov 29, 2007)

I like the idea of astology or star magic, but it fits much more with the scholarly wizard than with the pact-and-deal warlock IMHO.


----------



## Wormwood (Nov 29, 2007)

Atlatl Jones said:
			
		

> They may have decided to keep one of the sources of pacts back to release in a future supplement.  Or maybe they combined the stars and vestiges pacts.




It makes more sense for them to hold back Vestiges and Stars for later---their potential as 'power sources' seems untapped.


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 29, 2007)

Did anyone else read "Stars" and see "Far Realm"?

Just me?   

Good info on rogues though!


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Nov 29, 2007)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> Granted, you have to run around collecting stars to place in the Star Pocket of your sentient talking Backpack of Holding.



 

Wait, no. I mean  .

Huh? Darn kids and your mp3 video games.


----------



## Shortman McLeod (Nov 29, 2007)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> I like the idea of astology or star magic, but it fits much more with the scholarly wizard than with the pact-and-deal warlock IMHO.




Unless you think of "stars" in terms of Cthulhu-type "dark old ones that dwell in the stars beyond" type thing.


----------



## Perun (Nov 29, 2007)

Shortman McLeod said:
			
		

> Unless you think of "stars" in terms of Cthulhu-type "dark old ones that dwell in the stars beyond" type thing.




That's how I read it.

And I'm not even a Lovecraft fan


----------



## JohnSnow (Nov 30, 2007)

Shortman McLeod said:
			
		

> Unless you think of "stars" in terms of Cthulhu-type "dark old ones that dwell in the stars beyond" type thing.




Maybe they decided that Cthulu-type "dark old ones" are more appropriate as a paragon or Epic level path available to Warlocks. So there's 3 to start with, and the "Star" pacts are available only after you reach higher, somewhat more appropriate (assuming you're not running a horror campaign...), levels.

But that's just wild speculation on my part.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 30, 2007)

"Stars" in the Book of Exalted Deeds refers to the cults inspired by the arch-angelic powers.


----------

