Race Series books - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Race Series books

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
Amaril
Apr 04, 2005 16:15:23 Aside from the new races introduced in these books, how well does the content on the conventional races fit into Greyhawk?
#2
zombiegleemax
Apr 05, 2005 10:27:26 That's up to you. I've only looked in detail at Races of Stone. I think the Goliath (while overpowered) would fit in well in most any mountain range in the Flanaess. You'd have to come up with a plausible explanation for the introduction of any new race and with that you're only limited by your imagination. There are areas in GH that seem to be somewhat hard to reach, Hellfurnaces, Sea of Dust, Land of Black Ice, deep jungles, etc. Some of the really different races could be found there while the sub-races of Gnomes, elves, etc could be found living with their cousins or very near them.
#3
Amaril
Apr 05, 2005 10:32:37 I don't really care for the new races, I was just wondering if the descriptions of the traditional races (gnomes, dwarves, halflings, elves, etc.) seem typical for Greyhawk or if they seem "off." I haven't had a chance to review the books in depth, and I don't want to buy "fluff" books if the fluff isn't something I care to use.
#4
Elendur
Apr 05, 2005 12:54:39 Well, gnomes and dwarves are pretty undeveloped in Greyhawk, so the info in Races of Stone fits insomuch as it doesn't contradict anything.
#5
zombiegleemax
Apr 05, 2005 14:49:15
I don't really care for the new races, I was just wondering if the descriptions of the traditional races (gnomes, dwarves, halflings, elves, etc.) seem typical for Greyhawk or if they seem "off." I haven't had a chance to review the books in depth, and I don't want to buy "fluff" books if the fluff isn't something I care to use.

the sub-races of Gnomes, elves, etc could be found living with their cousins or very near them.

That didn't answer your question? Sorry I bothered you with the "fluff."
#6
Amaril
Apr 05, 2005 14:58:25 Sorry, I should clarify what I mean. I'm wondering if content such as the "day in the life" descriptions of elves, halflings, dwarves, etc. are vastly different than how the races are perceived in the Greyhawk setting. I'm concerned that having such descriptions out of context with an actual campaign setting would have the effect of making the fluff irrelevant.

However, I'm also wondering if WotC used the implication of Greyhawk being the "default setting" and kept the race descriptions true to how we perceive them. I they didn't, then the "fluff" portion (I do enjoy fluff in books so long as it is applicable to my campaign) might be useless. It is my hope that it is instead useful.
#7
Elendur
Apr 05, 2005 16:18:53 There isn't a lot of cultural description of the races in any of Greyhawk settings. Greyhawk is very humanocentric, so there's plenty of room to describe demihumans how you wish.

The only thing I have some trouble with is the idea of gnomes as expert bards. It just seemed to come out of the blue in 3.5. The dwarf stuff is all pretty solid. I can't say I really cared for any of the content in Races of the Wild, or Races of Destiny. Halflings especially don't really fit the classic Greyhawk conception.
#8
zombiegleemax
Apr 05, 2005 16:21:30
Sorry, I should clarify what I mean. I'm wondering if content such as the "day in the life" descriptions of elves, halflings, dwarves, etc. are vastly different than how the races are perceived in the Greyhawk setting. I'm concerned that having such descriptions out of context with an actual campaign setting would have the effect of making the fluff irrelevant.

I think they'd blend in well enough but I guess that would depend on how much you've fleshed out those races. Even then it should be easy enough to plug them in, it's just a matter of binding it all together.

However, I'm also wondering if WotC used the implication of Greyhawk being the "default setting" and kept the race descriptions true to how we perceive them. I they didn't, then the "fluff" portion (I do enjoy fluff in books so long as it is applicable to my campaign) might be useless. It is my hope that it is instead useful.

I guess you mean like the difference between a GH halfling, FR halfling and E halfling, correct? Honestly, from what I remember they are probably "generic" enough to fit into just about any setting. But that's JMHO, and I am not a DM.
#9
zombiegleemax
Apr 05, 2005 16:30:07
Halflings especially don't really fit the classic Greyhawk conception.

How's that? Because they didn't play a major role in the "history of the Flanaess"? Tolkien's halflings didn't play a major role in Middle Earth until the Fellowship the Ring, but they were still there. Oerth seems humanocentric because it's a campaign designers world, they give us a framework, a mostly bare canvas with some outlines and a couple splashes of paint and we're supposed to fill in the rest. It sure ain't a paint by numbers like FR.
#10
Amaril
Apr 05, 2005 16:33:56
How's that? Because they didn't play a major role in the "history of the Flanaess"? Tolkien's halflings didn't play a major role in Middle Earth until the Fellowship the Ring, but they were still there. Oerth seems humanocentric because it's a campaign designers world, they give us a framework, a mostly bare canvas with some outlines and a couple splashes of paint and we're supposed to fill in the rest. It sure ain't a paint by numbers like FR.

I think he meant that the description in Races of the Wild didn't fit the traditional Greyhawk concept.
#11
i-m_batman_dup
Apr 06, 2005 5:03:32
The only thing I have some trouble with is the idea of gnomes as expert bards. It just seemed to come out of the blue in 3.5.

Yeah, that's been nagging at me too.

I suppose they just wanted to get away from a race preferring a "subclass" of Wizard, so to speak, rather than a "full" class like Bard. Perhaps the feeling was there's more room to develop a unique character with a "full" class.

Still, it feels a little too square-peg-in-round-hole to me. Halflings might have been better if you wanted some race to prefer Bards. Or even half-elves. Gnomes have always struck me as natural Rogue/Illusionists--but that's 'cause I keep playing them that way, of course.
#12
Amaril
Apr 06, 2005 7:17:55 I tend to house rule my preferred classes for races as below

Halflings - Rangers (their nomads that live in the wild, duh! Even their goddess ir more closely tied to nature.)

Gnomes - Rogues (tinkerers, natural curiosity, not to mention ghost sound, prestigiditation, and dancing lights are very useful for rogues as distractions. The diety Garl Glittergold still works well for this idea, too.

Half-Elves - Bards (half-elves have +2 to diplomacy and charisma, and their seperation from both races would most likely push them to be wanderers. The elven side of them also still carries a love for music and dance, while their human side gives them their skillfulness.)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Amaril Apr 04, 2005 16:15:23	Aside from the new races introduced in these books, how well does the content on the conventional races fit into Greyhawk?
#2 zombiegleemax Apr 05, 2005 10:27:26	That's up to you. I've only looked in detail at Races of Stone. I think the Goliath (while overpowered) would fit in well in most any mountain range in the Flanaess. You'd have to come up with a plausible explanation for the introduction of any new race and with that you're only limited by your imagination. There are areas in GH that seem to be somewhat hard to reach, Hellfurnaces, Sea of Dust, Land of Black Ice, deep jungles, etc. Some of the really different races could be found there while the sub-races of Gnomes, elves, etc could be found living with their cousins or very near them.
#3 Amaril Apr 05, 2005 10:32:37	I don't really care for the new races, I was just wondering if the descriptions of the traditional races (gnomes, dwarves, halflings, elves, etc.) seem typical for Greyhawk or if they seem "off." I haven't had a chance to review the books in depth, and I don't want to buy "fluff" books if the fluff isn't something I care to use.
#4 Elendur Apr 05, 2005 12:54:39	Well, gnomes and dwarves are pretty undeveloped in Greyhawk, so the info in Races of Stone fits insomuch as it doesn't contradict anything.
#5 zombiegleemax Apr 05, 2005 14:49:15	I don't really care for the new races, I was just wondering if the descriptions of the traditional races (gnomes, dwarves, halflings, elves, etc.) seem typical for Greyhawk or if they seem "off." I haven't had a chance to review the books in depth, and I don't want to buy "fluff" books if the fluff isn't something I care to use. the sub-races of Gnomes, elves, etc could be found living with their cousins or very near them. That didn't answer your question? Sorry I bothered you with the "fluff."
#6 Amaril Apr 05, 2005 14:58:25	Sorry, I should clarify what I mean. I'm wondering if content such as the "day in the life" descriptions of elves, halflings, dwarves, etc. are vastly different than how the races are perceived in the Greyhawk setting. I'm concerned that having such descriptions out of context with an actual campaign setting would have the effect of making the fluff irrelevant. However, I'm also wondering if WotC used the implication of Greyhawk being the "default setting" and kept the race descriptions true to how we perceive them. I they didn't, then the "fluff" portion (I do enjoy fluff in books so long as it is applicable to my campaign) might be useless. It is my hope that it is instead useful.
#7 Elendur Apr 05, 2005 16:18:53	There isn't a lot of cultural description of the races in any of Greyhawk settings. Greyhawk is very humanocentric, so there's plenty of room to describe demihumans how you wish. The only thing I have some trouble with is the idea of gnomes as expert bards. It just seemed to come out of the blue in 3.5. The dwarf stuff is all pretty solid. I can't say I really cared for any of the content in Races of the Wild, or Races of Destiny. Halflings especially don't really fit the classic Greyhawk conception.
#8 zombiegleemax Apr 05, 2005 16:21:30	Sorry, I should clarify what I mean. I'm wondering if content such as the "day in the life" descriptions of elves, halflings, dwarves, etc. are vastly different than how the races are perceived in the Greyhawk setting. I'm concerned that having such descriptions out of context with an actual campaign setting would have the effect of making the fluff irrelevant. I think they'd blend in well enough but I guess that would depend on how much you've fleshed out those races. Even then it should be easy enough to plug them in, it's just a matter of binding it all together. However, I'm also wondering if WotC used the implication of Greyhawk being the "default setting" and kept the race descriptions true to how we perceive them. I they didn't, then the "fluff" portion (I do enjoy fluff in books so long as it is applicable to my campaign) might be useless. It is my hope that it is instead useful. I guess you mean like the difference between a GH halfling, FR halfling and E halfling, correct? Honestly, from what I remember they are probably "generic" enough to fit into just about any setting. But that's JMHO, and I am not a DM.
#9 zombiegleemax Apr 05, 2005 16:30:07	Halflings especially don't really fit the classic Greyhawk conception. How's that? Because they didn't play a major role in the "history of the Flanaess"? Tolkien's halflings didn't play a major role in Middle Earth until the Fellowship the Ring, but they were still there. Oerth seems humanocentric because it's a campaign designers world, they give us a framework, a mostly bare canvas with some outlines and a couple splashes of paint and we're supposed to fill in the rest. It sure ain't a paint by numbers like FR.
#10 Amaril Apr 05, 2005 16:33:56	How's that? Because they didn't play a major role in the "history of the Flanaess"? Tolkien's halflings didn't play a major role in Middle Earth until the Fellowship the Ring, but they were still there. Oerth seems humanocentric because it's a campaign designers world, they give us a framework, a mostly bare canvas with some outlines and a couple splashes of paint and we're supposed to fill in the rest. It sure ain't a paint by numbers like FR. I think he meant that the description in Races of the Wild didn't fit the traditional Greyhawk concept.
#11 i-m_batman_dup Apr 06, 2005 5:03:32	The only thing I have some trouble with is the idea of gnomes as expert bards. It just seemed to come out of the blue in 3.5. Yeah, that's been nagging at me too. I suppose they just wanted to get away from a race preferring a "subclass" of Wizard, so to speak, rather than a "full" class like Bard. Perhaps the feeling was there's more room to develop a unique character with a "full" class. Still, it feels a little too square-peg-in-round-hole to me. Halflings might have been better if you wanted some race to prefer Bards. Or even half-elves. Gnomes have always struck me as natural Rogue/Illusionists--but that's 'cause I keep playing them that way, of course.
#12 Amaril Apr 06, 2005 7:17:55	I tend to house rule my preferred classes for races as below Halflings - Rangers (their nomads that live in the wild, duh! Even their goddess ir more closely tied to nature.) Gnomes - Rogues (tinkerers, natural curiosity, not to mention ghost sound, prestigiditation, and dancing lights are very useful for rogues as distractions. The diety Garl Glittergold still works well for this idea, too. Half-Elves - Bards (half-elves have +2 to diplomacy and charisma, and their seperation from both races would most likely push them to be wanderers. The elven side of them also still carries a love for music and dance, while their human side gives them their skillfulness.)