There are a few active threads on what races are preferred and what race you would be.
My question is, what races would you most likely cut or modify in building your own world from scratch?
the same with classes, what classes would you most likely tinker with in launching your own world?
I would add to elves (you can sse the Super Elf problem thread for rationale if want) - and then add a level adjustment, the same with orcs, and goblins, and gnomes. I would also add a number of fdifferent flavors of "Plane-Touched" not that the game needs them I just like the idea of them.
I would make humans real underdogs in the world. So that coordination, learning, and strong martial traditions were critical to survival.
I would also assign specific realms to each race.
I would also tweak trolls and launch them as a PC race, but they wouldn't be like the trolls in the current MM, though I might keep the troll stats as is for a wolf-like forest creature.
halflings. they kinda bore me.
but not as much as gnomes do, so there is still hope.
i'd want there to be a Real reason to play anything but a halfling rouge or bard (at best)
okay so wizard right? maybe,, but.. when you think wizard, you see some powerfull somthing somthing. i guess maybe a sage halfling., but that's more npc. at best loremaster.
i know that all the races don't necicarily fit all classes and arn't really suposed to (half orc wiz? plz! fail.)
i'd say up the advantages of their small size~ a fighter halfling should be getting all up in your face.. a little guy can be kinda frightening, maybe make the barbarian halfling better... between 20ft speed and little tiny weapons halfings make me cry. i so want to, <i>WANT</i> to play this race.
...I would make humans real underdogs in the world. So that coordination, learning, and strong martial traditions were critical to survival...
To each their own, but D&D assumes human domination of the world. Do you not like that assumption?
If they're underdogs, why have they not been subjugated or marginalized as a race? How would any human kingdoms survive?
Just a thought :)
Jack
To each their own, but D&D assumes human domination of the world. Do you not like that assumption?
If they're underdogs, why have they not been subjugated or marginalized as a race? How would any human kingdoms survive?
Jack
No I don't like that assumption.
Elves - unless they are "moving into the twilight" or some other excuse would dominate.Orcs are stronger breed faster.
Dwarves would control most of the access to mineral wealth.
The longer life spans make Dwarves and Elves particularly difficult to rationalize. Add in the other bonuses and sure high level humans reach the point of advantage - but at the commoner level - they are weaker. IMO.
I would address it primarily with a much larger geography - where each race had its own lands with lots of uncharted space between. This is reinforced by a series of wars and plagues - mostly Dwarf on Dwarf and Elf on Elf - but there might be some "bad guys" thrown in.
An dI have heard many of the arguments as to why humans dominate. I don't like them, and believe them at best to be patchwork reasoning to support game balance - rather than a well thought rationale as to why the demographics are what they are.
Thanks for the reply.
if you can hunt down the dark dun editions of dungeon and dragon, they have 'upped'stats for all the stardard player races. i really liked that, i think it poped then to +2. i can't remember. but i do remember liking elfs.
in terms of whether 'elves would rule'? hmmm,..
well, i'm sure they would do fine.
but if the elves are lets say, near imortal, high magic-y kinda of poeple. (and low birthrate)
you may think that they have a pretty good handle on somthing akin to enlightenment. they cirtainly are suposed to be aloof et al. in such a case, WORLD DOMINATION may not be top on their list. things more like, conservation of nature, and balance of existance, self suficiency over expantionist behaviour.
your thinking of how you'd be an elf, like a human.
I've been creating a world inspired by the "shadow/darkness editions of D&D mag" I had elves as a race obsessed with the idea of efficiency. of everything. the world was cosmicaly post apocaliptic (big magic went boom, demons and angels throwing chunks of plains, hundreds of world sundered sort of thing) and the elves wanted to live with as few numbers as would be most efficient and long lasting.
magic that suported the idea(they didnt make wands and wastefull charge items.
language that suported the idea (there were lots of elves taking the vow of silence)
reproductive behaviours that suported the idea, (eugenics program breeding the elves to longer and longer lifespans with lower and lower birthrates.)
fighting styles that supported the idea (bows and arrows? nope. fighters, monks, rouges, etc that plan attacks down to the round, strike first and hard. force their foes to make mistakes rather than expending the extra effort to defeat a sound defence and if caught for longer than expected, retreat.)
i guess this post is really a combo of why i don't think elves should (or even in their current form: could) be the most powerfull race. AND what i am and would change about elves.
Get rid of 1/2 orcs and possibly 1/2 elves as standard player options. How many human women get raped by orc raiders...and then left alive? 1/2 elves are bit more believable, but the elf population really isn't very big...
As for classes, I have a whole list of small mods. Note: NONE of these affect the sorcerer one way or the other...sorry I'm sick of hearing about how the sorcerer is underpowered.
|
For drow, there's an ECL 0 variant in the Player's Guide for Faerun; thinking about using that for "Drizz't clones" or expatriate drow who have taken to life on the surface world, who through lack of devotion to Lolth and/or distance from the unique radiations of the mother city have lost their spell resistance and ability to be one with the darkness. Fraggin heathens!!!
In my own campaign, I've done away with gnomes.
Never liked 'em, never had a player want to be one, no need for them.
Dragonlance and subsequently Spelljammer convinced me that doing away with gnomes was the right decision for my campaign.
I modify all races depending on terrain and culture. Each race and culture gets a few free skills and feats in my game. So, no matter what race you play, you will get a few free skills and a feat depending on your background. This is the only tweak I do to the races. With so many feats to choose from in this game and very little ability to get very many of them, I have determined that some of the feats that just help flesh out and give color to a character should be more available without having to spend your level earned game feat.
I would personally make half-elf and half-orc templates just like half-elemental or half-celestial or whatever. That way you can have half-elven dwarves or whatever. It seems like it would cut out a lot of the complaints about half-characters.
I would probably mod the elves (ok, my gaming group can stop sighing lol ;) Anyhow, elves seem to be really xenophobic. Most fantasy maps are dotted with "elf only" locations of the world, be it old forests, islands, whatever. It seems strange to me that a lot of games give them a plus to charisma, I mean, sure they may be good looking, but the superior attitude has to grate on people. I would give them a negative modifier to charisma just to represent the fact that due to most elves isolationists practices they have a difficult time relating to people who are not their own kind.
A lot of them. I've sat down and gone through the entire "standard" list of races and thought about how they would fit into my homebrew campaign. There are some points, mechanically speaking, that I wouldn't change for the sake of simplicity, but others I have (like changing favored classes) for the sake of flavor.
For me, having a strong background for whatever race you happen to be using (who what why where when, etc) is essential. "Why are the elves considered masters of arcane magic?" You should be able to answer that, as a DM, without skipping a beat. One more method to immerse your players.
I would probably mod the elves (ok, my gaming group can stop sighing lol ;) Anyhow, elves seem to be really xenophobic. Most fantasy maps are dotted with "elf only" locations of the world, be it old forests, islands, whatever. It seems strange to me that a lot of games give them a plus to charisma, I mean, sure they may be good looking, but the superior attitude has to grate on people. I would give them a negative modifier to charisma just to represent the fact that due to most elves isolationists practices they have a difficult time relating to people who are not their own kind.
*sigh*
Heh...
|
I'd take darkvision away from dwarves, give them low-light vision instead. See, if dwarves can see in the dark, then dwarven cities are pitch black - no torches, no lanterns, no glowglobes, no need for light of any kind. That's just not how I picture dwarven halls. Beside, it sucks for visitors. I agree that dwarves can operate with minimal light, but I think they need a little.
As a matter of fact, I'd probably take darkvision away from most monsterous humanoids and give them low-light vision instead. I imagine the orc patrol carrying torches, not moving about in total darkness. Or if you want a few individuals who can move in total darkness, give them Blindsight as a feat. Besides, if everybody but a few aberations and REALLY deep dwellers needs at leasta little light, it solves the problem of surface adventures alerting everyone in the Underdark to their presence with their torches.
Finally, I would strongly consider giving anyone with genuine darkvision a strong aversion to light to make up for it.
Elves, Dwarves, Half Orcs and Gnomes. No racial penalties to Cha. But do have racial penalties to interaction skills based on local prejudices.
Elf - +4 Dex, +2 Cha. Detect magic at will with a range of touch. DR 1/cold iron. Fav Class: Sorcerer. LA +1. I prefer a fey-ish elf.
Dwarves - +2 Con, -2 Dex. No AC bonus vs giants, no attk bonus vs racial enemies, no free exotic wpn prof., no stability (but they can get this as a racial feat). Instead +1 Nat Armor, Improved Toughness feat, Endurance feat, +2 MDT (Maximum Damage threshold. which equals CON in our game, deadly). Proficiency with simple and martial hammers. Very Tough.
Gnomes - +2 Int -2 Str. favored class: Wizard, No racial attk bonus or racial dodge bonus vs giants., Gnomes gain the ability to SV vs Illusions with out the need to interact with Illusions beforehand. Their SV bonus vs Illusions increases to +4. They gain a +2 bonus with sense motive and bluff. Have yet to test Gnomes because still no one wants to play one. :(
Half Orcs - +2 Str, -2 Int. +2 Intimidate. Can gain Scent as a feat.
A lot of them. I've sat down and gone through the entire "standard" list of races and thought about how they would fit into my homebrew campaign.
Which is very nice but needs a map for us to look at.
I tend to modify my races based on culture of the races. So a number of different Gnomes are around based on the different Gnome Castes in my home brew. Dwarves get a bonus to starting gold and some interesting martial weapons but are not allowed to be mages or sorcerers. That sort of thing. I usually try and refine it by only allowing certian races access to certian prestige classes as well though some prestige classes are so generic that everyone has access to them. And of course - NO ELVES.
My main modification would be to tweak the elves into a more Tolkieney mode (why bother to have 'em otherwise, y'know?), which would require giving them LA. One of the reasons D&D elves are jarring, I suspect, is that the fluff always has them being all sorts of awesome, but the crunch doesn't support it.
So probably +2 Cha, Alertness, a few racial bonuses to Spellcraft, not sure what else. (They'd also be tall, not shrimpy.) I'd also make their favored class Bard, 'cause they're always singing all over the place.
That, and halflings need their hairy feet back. ;)
-The Gneech
|
My main modification would be to tweak the elves into a more Tolkieney mode (why bother to have 'em otherwise, y'know?), which would require giving them LA. One of the reasons D&D elves are jarring, I suspect, is that the fluff always has them being all sorts of awesome, but the crunch doesn't support it.
So probably +2 Cha, Alertness, a few racial bonuses to Spellcraft, not sure what else. (They'd also be tall, not shrimpy.) I'd also make their favored class Bard, 'cause they're always singing all over the place.
That, and halflings need their hairy feet back. ;)
-The Gneech
Yeah, what you said!
Also, if you want to make the elves more like Tolkien wrote them then they would be more naturally effective against undead and such. Like the way Glorfindel (spelling?) affected the Nazgul at at Rivendell.
Also, if you want to make the elves more like Tolkien wrote them then they would be more naturally effective against undead and such. Like the way Glorfindel (spelling?) affected the Nazgul at at Rivendell.
Eh, not _all_ elves. Legolas didn't seem to have any particular advantages over undead, for instance. Maybe Glorfindel was a cleric? ;)
-The Gneech
I replaced the elves' lack of need for sleep and ability to automatically search for secret doors. Lack of need for sleep comes directly from Tolkien, while I've never understood the auto-door search at all.
Instead, I gave them things that reflect their age, learning and magical apptitude: +2 to Decipher Script, Knowledges (Arcana and History), and Spellcraft. At least, that's high and gray elves. Wood and wild elves get +2 Handle Animal, Knowledge (History and Nature), and Survival. I also added proficiency with the scimitar.
I don't find this at all unbalancing, and it helps make elves a little more sensical in my campaign. (Notice I said a little more; I know some of you still won't like it, but I and my group are fine with it, so I won't reply to arguments against this).
As far as half-elves, I gave them -2 Con and +2 Cha, along with some other skill bonuses. I tried this originally, and the skill bonuses I gave, combined with the racial adjustments, made them rather overpowered. So, I toned down the skill bonuses. It was all rather well-done, but I lost my notes on the modifications to the skills, so I've no idea what they were and will have to redo the whole thing. It was mainly social skills.
The rationale was that humans and elves are very magical races (though more by wizardry than sorcery), but the mixing of their blood tended to create rather dramatic off-spring. Half-elves are a rarity, but make great leaders and often have an innate magical ability (i.e., great sorcerers and bards, as well as rogues, and as long as you can take the Con penalty, not bad clerics and paladins). Every other race has a list of classes they are well-suited for, including the half-orc, so the other half-race should have a focus, as well.
Finally, I did away with half-orcs and left simply full orcs, minus daylight sensitivity and sporting a +2 to Intimidate. My players love this, and they are still not as powerful of a race as dwarves, me thinks, though the +4 Str makes it close.
None of these are level-adjusted.
I'm really thinking about imposing racial restrictions, too (no elf paladins or monks, for example), since there are some combos that just wouldn't be found in the culture of my world. But, I can't bring myself to do it, since the adventurers are the exception to the rule, and one of my players might have a really good story to explain why their orc is one of the few to take up sorcery in the history of the world. I am a little more open to the thought of inforcing racial restrictions on some prestige classes.
My question is, what races would you most likely cut or modify in building your own world from scratch?
That's a good question-- they'd probably vary by campaign. For one I'm currently considering, I'd probably keep the list strongly restricted: two or three player races (probably humans, "elves", and "dwarves"), which wouldn't be a big deal for our group, since the others are rarely played. I'd limit the monsterous humanoids too; probably keeping just goblins and hobgoblins and eliminating orcs, gnolls, kobolds, etc. The major differences would probably be cultural, as the form nations, etc.
Elves and dwarves would be (largely) the same game stat wise [same free proficencies, skill bonuses, etc.], but their ages would be cut; elves age 50% slower, dwarves 20% slower than humans-- enough for differentiation, but not the 1000 year model.
Hey!
In our games, I've modified some of the races.
Elves are now more teritorial and distrusting of each other. Especially Half-Elves.
Dwarves are more magical and are mysterious Fae creatures from deep undergroud.
Gnomes have taken up the 'dwarf-trimmings' of clanish, solid and engineers.
Great thread; an interesting read! Thanks guys!
Peace,
tfad
My question is, what races would you most likely cut or modify in building your own world from scratch?
I always eliminate elves, half-elves, halflings, gnomes, orcs, and half-orcs. I loathe the pseudo-Tolkienesque presentation in the core rules, I love Eberron's take on them, but I'm happier leaving them out if I make my own world (since I'm not going to rip the Eberron version off).
the same with classes, what classes would you most likely tinker with in launching your own world?
I usually get rid of paladins - they don't often fit in with the cosmologies I prefer. I'm fine with the other classes, though I like to build in a place for "capsystem" classes, like the psionic and meldshaping classes, right from the get-go.
I like the stereotypes of demi-humans and what they represent. I don't like evil surface elves, dwarven mages or anything that doesn't fit the old tried and true stereotype--knowing that 99.9% of elves are chaotic good is what makes a fantasy world just that to me, otherwise if the elves or dwarves or whatever just display the same huge variance of alignments and moralities that humans have, then what's the point of even having them? They're just humans with different special qualities at that point.
If a player wants to play an evil surface elf, I don't discourage it, he just will know that his character is at the far far end of a bellcurve.
I don't really "modify" the races in my game--I just keep them closer to their original comfortable stereotype than what I've seen presented in many published adventures--for example, the evil halfling enchanter who lived in the Kopru Ruins in the SCAP game became a human instead.
|
Are orcs and the more vulgar humanoid ilk redeemable, or are they evil through and through as in Tolkien's interpretation of them?
Depends on the DM...and the group. If roleplaying the redemtion of an orc is something the DM and Group both would work towards then I would let them be redeemable BUT if the Paladin slew the orc outright due to his inherent nature then his god would not punish him.
FH
|
|
I got in a big philosophical argument about that once, then had to give up, since most such arguments are subjective, and everyone in the room was on the other side of the argument including the dm, thus for all practical purposes invalidating my point. I just wish I had given up sooner; too much crap on my face.
I got in a big philosophical argument about that once, then had to give up, since most such arguments are subjective, and everyone in the room was on the other side of the argument including the dm, thus for all practical purposes invalidating my point. I just wish I had given up sooner; too much crap on my face.
Well it is a good philosophical concept in any case. If nothing else one should be able to answer this question when designing a world. How you answer it has significant implications for the look and feel of the world.
In my home brew one of the absolute core themes is a 'reverse' wild west type feel. The frontier grows year by year as the goblinoid races advance slowly but inexorably. For my purposes Orcs and other goblinoids are close to irredeemable.
This also plays into me getting rid of the elves. In many fantasy worlds Elves are slowly dying out, pressured by more aggressive and fecund races – I just designed a campaign world where that process had been completed. All the lore of the elves remain scattered among the ruins of their extinct civilization. Ruins of the destroyed Elvish Civilization make good adventuring locals.
Part of the attraction of D&D to me and many of my players is that there is black and white--the orcs are evil, the elves are good, the dwarves are greedy, the halflings live in burrows, the gnomes are engineers and tinkerers, etc.
Occasional aberrations are okay, but they are very much the exception. While I'm not trying to emulate Tolkien in my campaign world, I like the simplicity of the good vs. evil, chaos vs. law struggle. Convulated morals, twisted senses of right and wrong are all fine and good for simulation games of the modern f'ed up world, but the simplicity and predictability of D&D alignments and racial motivations is something I very much enjoy. In my campaign when the players come into a halfling village, they can be 90% certain they're not going to get mugged by CE half-lizardfolk fiendish halfling barbarians (unless it's a really good illusion)
One of the first 3rd edition adventures I ran was "Natural Selection" from Dungeon #85--an excellent adventure, BTW. However, I was vastly taken aback by the evil gnoll druids...WTF my 1st edition brain said? No way....I changed the whole druidic order to arrogant, annoying and very much neutral human druids--old, spiteful and unwashed and hated by the party just as much as the neutral evil gnoll druids would have been.
Call me a traditionalist--I like that 3rd edition gives you the option to make weird racial combinations of classes and make them fit into the rules consistently, but that doesn't mean I actually do that very often.
That also applies to all the weird templates creatures with multiple templates--just ain't my bag, but that's for another thread.
In my home brew one of the absolute core themes is a 'reverse' wild west type feel. The frontier grows year by year as the goblinoid races advance slowly but inexorably. For my purposes Orcs and other goblinoids are close to irredeemable.
Thats a cool idea for a world!
|
|
How many of you have ever read Lloyd Alexander's Prydain Chronicles? In that series, most of the main characters are human, with the exception of Gurgi, whom I always saw as a miniature, crack-smoking wookie.
Anyway, one of the recurring characters in the series is the dwarf Doli, a member of the Fair Folk. Now its been a long time since I read all the books (sadly I only own the last two in the series and have never seen the others in bookstores), but it seems that Alexander used the Fair Folk as a kind of all-encompassing race for characters resembling elves, dwarves, gnomes, haflings, etc. I've often thought of doing something like that. Of course, I think the best way to make it work would be to combine the gnomes and dwarves into a single "Fair Folk" race and drop the elves and hafling completely (or maybe keep the halflings as well, since they look like miniature elves anyway).
Yeah, party imbalance can be a problem, but don't go blaming all the extra options for it. If there's a gap in the party you can always find another class to fill in nowadays. For instance, if the party lacks a healer there's clerics, favoured souls, druids, spirit shamans, shugenjas, ardents (Life mantle) and the partial healing classes like paladin, ranger, dragon shaman etc. So there is no need to boycot the extra classes for the sake of party balance. If the party won't make up for a dificiency then it's their fault not the DM's, let them know about it and if they ignore you then let 'em suffer (but don't go out of your way to do so).
When I play I always end up having to fill a role but with so many classes I can always find a way to do it that I'm happy with.
Also, why do some people find dragon characters so bad? I love dragons a lot, so seeing some DM's backlist them because of some munchkins is really sad. And when I say that I love dragons I mean it, every piece of clothing I'm currently wearing has a dragon on it somewhere, I can see four different dragon statuettes, at least ten books about dragons and a dragon poster just taking a quick glance around my room. Not being able to play a dragon shaman if I wanted to simply because the DM think's they're munchkiny would make me really unhappy, and the point of the game is to have fun right?
I think the obsession with half-dragons is due to the inherent power/coolness of dragons, and half-dragons let you play a dragon-like character without having to take an absurd level adjustment, but like anything else it can be munchkinised but it can also be fun, it all depends on who you're playing with.
I'm with you, Farewell2Kings. I like my races pretty black & white (if you'll excuse the pun), over-simplified,over-generalized. While a good orc isn't impossible, we've yet to see one. And an evil high elf not unheard of but extremely rare.
The funny thing is, though we still play 2nd ed, I modify lots of the 3.x adventures and include them in our game play. One such was the "Natural Selection" and I had exactly the same reaction to the evil gnoll druids and resolved it in almost exactly the same way (although I allowed the truly neutral human druids to have gnoll allies/henchmen).
In my homebrew campaign humans definitely rule the world. There are isolated border nations of elves, dwarves, and an evil empire (really more like expanding hinterlands) of orcs. Though halflings and gnomes exist they are extremely rare and have virtually no civilization of their own. A few hobbit-hole little halfling towns near the frontier and perhaps an isolated thorp of engineering gnomes.
The elves in my campaign DO sleep and they only live (or exist on the current plane) for about 250 years. Dwarves live to about 300 years.
Half-elves and half-orcs are extremely rare and are mostly just a combination of 50% abilities or bonuses from the combination races. The idea that two races could mix and the resulting offspring would have more benefits than either of its parents never made a whole lot of sense to me. I don't like the idea of templates but might allow a player to incorporate one if his reasoning was solid (hasn't happened thus far).
A lot of times, when I come across strange combinations or classes/races whose existence conflicts with my philosophies of the way my fantasy world works, I just replace them with something that *does* work (for me).
My world had a certain amount of magical "Leakage." The creatures on it evolved very quickly on one continent. That continent grew very quickly. When the elves where subsumed, they where caught by surprise and many began to mutate within generations (explaining the Dark elves and wood elves.) Dwarves had some level of warning, and prepared themselves with what little magic they could muster to stop the change.
The orcs do not exist in my world. There is, however, a race of "beastials." This encompases everything that appears similar to an animal with evil humanoid characteristics, everything from kobolds to Minotaurs. They all fall under the catch-all phrase of "beastials." The orcs are represented as Razorbacks.
Beast-men are represented by half-orcs.
I eliminate most of the pointless and otherwise 'fluff' races available in many of the 'Races of...' and environmental books, many of which have absolutely no purpose whatsoever save to justify the release of the book. Can't 'normal' dwarves live in the desert or the tundra, or do we need yet more stats for yet more different types of standard races.
I eliminate most of the pointless and otherwise 'fluff' races available in many of the 'Races of...' and environmental books, many of which have absolutely no purpose whatsoever save to justify the release of the book. Can't 'normal' dwarves live in the desert or the tundra, or do we need yet more stats for yet more different types of standard races.
Amen!
In my own campaign, I've done away with gnomes.
Never liked 'em, never had a player want to be one, no need for them.
Dragonlance and subsequently Spelljammer convinced me that doing away with gnomes was the right decision for my campaign.
I am interested in your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter ;-)
Gnomes always bugged me. About the only thing I ever read abotu them I liked was the ancient Dragon article detailling the other gods of the gnomish pantheon (reprinted in Best of Dragon Volume 3) otherwise I don't use 'em. One small PC race is enough (and Halflings look like Hobbits dammit!).
1/2 Orcs are 'meh' to me - I allow them as a choice but have no hatred or love of them. I don't make changes to the race as written though. 1/2 elves hold a special place in the campaign world I run (Scarred Lands) being the product of the (sterile) High Elves' plan to repopulate their culture with 1/2 breed offspring from kidnapped (!) humans. That said I think they are one of the worst, mechanically, races out there and give them the extra skill points OR feat the humans enjoy (player's choice).
|
|
One small PC race is enough (and Halflings look like Hobbits dammit!).
Not anymore. Since the advent of 3E halflings have looked more like miniature elves then the Hobbits of old. A friend of mine started them looking that way in his homebrew world years ago, so maybe he's somewhat prophetic. Think I'll go talk to him about stock options....
Additionally, Rilmari, Warforged, Inevitables, what do these ridiculous things add to a game where you fight dragons with a sword? They've GOTTA GO.
All gnomes should be made to wear pointy red hats.
GGG