Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Planescape: Torment: Enhanced Edition has been released! Visit www.planescape.com to purchase and check for details. Planescape: Torment: Enhanced Edition Official Soundtrack is available.
Soundtracks for BG:EE, SoD, BG2:EE, IWD:EE are now available in the Beamdog store.
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Sub races...

13»

Comments

  • ThelsThels Member Posts: 911

    I figured as much, given that both subraces I named are from 3rd edition's Races of Faerûn sourcebook. That book does after all have a much more complete list of the Forgotten Realms standard races than other sources of this setting.

    What would you consider non-standard races then? Sure, I can open up a couple dozen books and write down a huge list of playable races, but what's the point? I kinda fail to see the reasoning behind this picking.

    The "standard" races to me are the races listed in the campaign setting/player's guide. Players that want to play in FR should read either of those books and pick a race from there. Can they check other books such as the Races of Faerun book, and pick a race from there? Of course, if their DM permits it. Doesn't mean those races are "standard" races.

    You've got it backwards. MMOs mostly take tropes from fantasy tabletop gaming, less so the other way around. 4E is no more "embracing MMO tropes" than is 3rd Edition, or Pathfinder. Then again, no game is developed in a vacuum, so it's possible you might be able to trace some minute aspects of a given, more recent edition to an MMO game. But, I'd appreciate the enumeration of these supposed MMO tropes in a PM.

    Actually, 4th edition's rules setup is very similar to how MMOs are set up, whereby each class has it's own individual list of moves to use, whereas other versions have basic rules for attacking and casting spells, and classes tweaking and buffing those attacks.

    4th edition would lean itself very well for a computer game. It's ruleset is more robust and more focused on combat strategy and balance than the other versions.

    The problem that I think most people have with 4th edition, is that it doesn't feel D&Dish. The ruleset is completely different from any other D&D version, 5th included. Despite it not really being D&D, it could still be a cool game, though.
  • KamigoroshiKamigoroshi Member Posts: 4,057
    Thels said:

    I figured as much, given that both subraces I named are from 3rd edition's Races of Faerûn sourcebook. That book does after all have a much more complete list of the Forgotten Realms standard races than other sources of this setting.

    What would you consider non-standard races then? Sure, I can open up a couple dozen books and write down a huge list of playable races, but what's the point? I kinda fail to see the reasoning behind this picking.

    The "standard" races to me are the races listed in the campaign setting/player's guide. Players that want to play in FR should read either of those books and pick a race from there. Can they check other books such as the Races of Faerun book, and pick a race from there? Of course, if their DM permits it. Doesn't mean those races are "standard" races.
    Personally, I consider any race that is not part of Forgotten Realm lore to be "non-standard" for this setting. This would for example include the Neanderthals from Frostburn, the Bhuka from Sandstorm, or the Darfellan from Stormwrack. On the other hand, all races featured in Races of Faerûn have deep roots in previous editions of the Forgotten Realms.

  • ThelsThels Member Posts: 911
    Ah, well, that's a completely different definition of "standard" that we have then. I'd refer to those as "non-setting" races.

    I wouldn't even consider races outside forgotten realms sourcebooks, unless they specifically include forgotten realms background material.
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 3,948
    I would go for subraces that fit the setting and add something interesting in terms of gameplay or roleplay.
    KamigoroshijackjackMoomintroll
  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190
    Thels said:



    Actually, 4th edition's rules setup is very similar to how MMOs are set up, whereby each class has it's own individual list of moves to use, whereas other versions have basic rules for attacking and casting spells, and classes tweaking and buffing those attacks.

    4th edition would lean itself very well for a computer game. It's ruleset is more robust and more focused on combat strategy and balance than the other versions.

    The problem that I think most people have with 4th edition, is that it doesn't feel D&Dish. The ruleset is completely different from any other D&D version, 5th included. Despite it not really being D&D, it could still be a cool game, though.

    4E also has basic rules for attacking. Powers are just "tweaks and buffs" to those rules. 3rd Edition gave each class its own spell lists aside from wizards and sorcerers sharing theirs. 4E is no different, except that sorcerers and wizards had their power lists split up and differentiated.

    Well, as an avid gamer of 3.5, Pathfinder, and 4th, I can definitely say with certainty that they're all D&D. 4E isn't any more "robust" than 3rd Edition, really. Hell, I'd say 4th is lighter on the minutiae than 3rd. 3E devotes entire pages to grappling and bull rushing. 4E grab and bull rush are a paragraph or two. Being focused more on balance I would agree with, but more focused on combat? No.
  • GoodSteveGoodSteve Member Posts: 607
    Thels said:

    A whole bunch of stuff.

    Actually many of the prestige classes in 3e and 3.5 didn't have anything to do with joining a group or organization. In fact, most didn't and the ones that actually had a prerequisite along the lines of "must be a member of 'X' order" were the minority. This is even true of the original PrC's in the DM Guide, where only two had such requirements, the assassin and the red wizard.

    Also, you forgot to mention that Aasimar, Tieflings and the various Genasi races are all +1 LA.
  • ThelsThels Member Posts: 911
    GoodSteve said:

    Actually many of the prestige classes in 3e and 3.5 didn't have anything to do with joining a group or organization. In fact, most didn't and the ones that actually had a prerequisite along the lines of "must be a member of 'X' order" were the minority. This is even true of the original PrC's in the DM Guide, where only two had such requirements, the assassin and the red wizard.

    Mmh. It was their original intent, and if you check the general information on prestige classes, rather than the individual classes, there's quite some reference to that. Unfortunately, they mostly ended up an extra character option.
    GoodSteve said:

    Also, you forgot to mention that Aasimar, Tieflings and the various Genasi races are all +1 LA.

    Oops! Fixed.
  • LordsDarkKnight185LordsDarkKnight185 Member Posts: 615
    edited September 2014



    4E also has basic rules for attacking. Powers are just "tweaks and buffs" to those rules. 3rd Edition gave each class its own spell lists aside from wizards and sorcerers sharing theirs. 4E is no different, except that sorcerers and wizards had their power lists split up and differentiated.

    Well, as an avid gamer of 3.5, Pathfinder, and 4th, I can definitely say with certainty that they're all D&D. 4E isn't any more "robust" than 3rd Edition, really. Hell, I'd say 4th is lighter on the minutiae than 3rd. 3E devotes entire pages to grappling and bull rushing. 4E grab and bull rush are a paragraph or two. Being focused more on balance I would agree with, but more focused on combat? No.

    Just some personal oppinion ranting with possible no fact.

    Looking through the 4e Players Handbook I found the said "Basic attack" But since the game is balanced around Powers, I cannot see how you could play without Powers easily without gimping yourself.

    And this is all a matter of perspective too. When 3e came out all of the AD&D grognards went "What are these Feats? So many options! Such complication" and then when 4e came out we 3.5 veterans went "What are these Powers? Why cannot I just swing my axe?! Such complication!" and now that 5e is out I am just waiting for the 4e neophytes to say something similar about how everything is kind of coming back around full circle to the AD&D days of simplicity.

    But to the original inquiry, 4e is compared to MMO's (OR most commonly compared to WoW) because of the Powers. 3.5 did not have powers, a fighter simply had bonus feats than he got to just swing a sword all day, but 4e (Like an mmo) every attack had to have a power like ability, instead of just swinging your sword...that is all.
    Moomintroll
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 3,948



    4E also has basic rules for attacking. Powers are just "tweaks and buffs" to those rules. 3rd Edition gave each class its own spell lists aside from wizards and sorcerers sharing theirs. 4E is no different, except that sorcerers and wizards had their power lists split up and differentiated.

    Well, as an avid gamer of 3.5, Pathfinder, and 4th, I can definitely say with certainty that they're all D&D. 4E isn't any more "robust" than 3rd Edition, really. Hell, I'd say 4th is lighter on the minutiae than 3rd. 3E devotes entire pages to grappling and bull rushing. 4E grab and bull rush are a paragraph or two. Being focused more on balance I would agree with, but more focused on combat? No.

    Just some personal oppinion ranting with possible no fact.

    Looking through the 4e Players Handbook I found the said "Basic attack" But since the game is balanced around Powers, I cannot see how you could play without Powers easily without gimping yourself.

    And this is all a matter of perspective too. When 3e came out all of the AD&D grognards went "What are these Feats? So many options! Such complication" and then when 4e came out we 3.5 veterans went "What are these Powers? Why cannot I just swing my axe?! Such complication!" and now that 5e is out I am just waiting for the 4e neophytes to say something similar about how everything is kind of coming back around full circle to the AD&D days of simplicity.

    But to the original inquiry, 4e is compared to MMO's (OR most commonly compared to WoW) because of the Powers. 3.5 did not have powers, a fighter simply had bonus feats than he got to just swing a sword all day, but 4e (Like an mmo) every attack had to have a power like ability, instead of just swinging your sword...that is all.
    Yes, it's a matter of presentation. 4E was designed for people who have grown up with computer games for their whole lives.

    Hence "I activate my Axe power" instead of "I hit him with my axe".
  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190



    Just some personal oppinion ranting with possible no fact.

    Looking through the 4e Players Handbook I found the said "Basic attack" But since the game is balanced around Powers, I cannot see how you could play without Powers easily without gimping yourself.

    And this is all a matter of perspective too. When 3e came out all of the AD&D grognards went "What are these Feats? So many options! Such complication" and then when 4e came out we 3.5 veterans went "What are these Powers? Why cannot I just swing my axe?! Such complication!" and now that 5e is out I am just waiting for the 4e neophytes to say something similar about how everything is kind of coming back around full circle to the AD&D days of simplicity.

    But to the original inquiry, 4e is compared to MMO's (OR most commonly compared to WoW) because of the Powers. 3.5 did not have powers, a fighter simply had bonus feats than he got to just swing a sword all day, but 4e (Like an mmo) every attack had to have a power like ability, instead of just swinging your sword...that is all.

    There are magic items and feats that improve your basic attacks. There are several classes introduced in Essentials (4.5, basically) that only have basic attacks, like the Knight or Slayer who are essentially both Fighters who just swing their swords, although they do have modal stance abilities. Charging, generally, only allows you to use a basic attack, and charging can be optimized to be one of the most powerful actions in 4E even without powers that can be used on charges. Some charge builds, such as using a hammer enchanted with the Avalanche property, would actually be weaker if you weren't using a basic attack at the end of your charge.

    A lot of the feats a 3.5 Fighter would take, like Power Attack, essentially are powers. You choose to use them before your attack roll, they modify the basic attack rules, and allow you to do things you might otherwise not be able to do. For instance, there was a feat in 3.5's Complete Warrior that allowed you to, on your turn, choose to take a -4 to your AC in order for any attack against you to provoke an opportunity attack, and there's a 4E Blackguard power that essentially functions the same way.

    Nevermind the fact that most MMOs, particularly WoW and the clones that immediately followed it, have basic attacks, and even at high-level play they constitute a considerable chunk of your damage per second.
  • IWDee wont have subraces until bgee has subraces because iwd did not have subraces and iwdee will use the 1.3 engine. Subraces would be cool though if it could ever be implemented.
    RAM021
  • CasadoomCasadoom Member Posts: 68
    edited September 2014
    Subraces would be really amazing even if they were just there for visual flavour or a few minimal benefits tailored for the 2nd edition. For me at least, other than the updated UI, (which imo should have modifiable spell slots like in IWDII) this would be a bigger enhancement than anything else.

    For BG2, I can understand that having a drow protagonist would make little sense but for other sub-races (like say, a sun elf) this would not be a real limitation and would not require any actual changes to the dialogues. In IWD such limitation would not even be there.

    (Alternatively, I would be quite happy with simply giving the modders the tools to actually be able to add subraces)
  • JarrakulJarrakul Member Posts: 1,983
    My understanding is that it's mechanically difficult to add subraces to the game engine (since it's not using the IWD2 engine). Perhaps that's wrong, but if not, I can understand why other things have been given priority. I mean, if you want to play a drow, you can always play an elf with dark skin and just roleplay it.
    Kamigoroshielminsterjackjack
  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190
    Well, there was a mod that added sub-races to BG2, albeit you selected them after character creation through dialogue options.
  • JarrakulJarrakul Member Posts: 1,983
    edited September 2014
    Yeah, that'd work. Might be a bit of a pain to do for all six party members, though, and honestly it feels kind of like a hack (because it kind of is). That's fine for mods, but I'm not sure it makes much sense for vanilla EE.
    Schneidendjackjack
  • Wise_GrimwaldWise_Grimwald Member Posts: 1,153
    edited July 28

    Well, there was a mod that added sub-races to BG2, albeit you selected them after character creation through dialogue options.

    That mod works in BG1 EE and SoD. :) The link is here: http://chosenofmystra.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1772

    Obviously you wouldn't install the stat bonus part if installing in BG1.

    There are some parts of it which I would use EE Keeper for afterwards. The arctic dwarf part for instance. Also the part that gives a daylight penalty for drow is a bit buggy. However it is a good starting point for anyone who wants to develop a better sub-race mod.

    Also there is one race where you are supposed to get a bonus of one * in axes. It doesn't. It gives 1* in axes whether you had no stars or **** to start with. However EE Keeper can rectify that.
13»
Sign In or Register to comment.