PDA

View Full Version : 4e- Githzerai Full Race Writeup



Asbestos
2009-08-04, 04:39 PM
Sadly, its for DDI people only right now.

Found here. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20090804)

Something to note, they specifically state in the article that Githyanki will not be appearing as a PC race in the PHB3.
James Wyatt: Contrary to some message-board claims, the githyanki are not appearing in Playerís Handbook 3. Why not, you ask?
The githzeraiís evil kin are great villains, and we want to be careful about how often we turn villain races into player character options. Making the drow a playable race spent a lot of that currency, and we donít want to overdo it.

Mike Mearls: While sometimes itís fun to play against stereotypes, we donít want every villainous race to go the way of the drow.

I'm not really sure how I feel about that.

FoE
2009-08-04, 04:45 PM
Contrary to some message-board claims, the githyanki are not appearing in Playerís Handbook 3. Why not, you ask?
The githzeraiís evil kin are great villains, and we want to be careful about how often we turn villain races into player character options. Making the drow a playable race spent a lot of that currency, and we donít want to overdo it.

While sometimes itís fun to play against stereotypes, we donít want every villainous race to go the way of the drow.

I applaud their decision. It's gotten to the point where the drow are a joke. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0044.html)

Limos
2009-08-04, 04:52 PM
I'm actually really glad I finally broke down and got a subscription. There is a lot of good stuff in there.

erikun
2009-08-04, 04:57 PM
Githzerai? Sweet. They are one of the reasons I'm interested in picking up the PHB3 and.....

Oh, wait. That's right. Wizards doesn't care if I'm interested, because I don't give them $10 a month. :smallannoyed: Well, nevermind then.


As a side note, no Githyanki? They don't want them to "go the way of the drow"? :smallconfused: I hate to break it to Wizards, but there have been Drow PCs since at least 2nd edition, due in no small part to the success of one particular popular Forgotten Realms author. Besides, once you publish the Githyanki racial stats and feats, you've basically given them the same "player character options" every other race has.

And the only two settings I could see Githyanki set in are Planescape and Spelljammer. Hmm...

RTGoodman
2009-08-04, 04:57 PM
Most important part of the article? We get the name for a new class - the Seeker. (It says at the bottom that githzerai tend toward the Ranger, Monk, and Seeker classes.)

Otherwise, it's a pretty cool class, but not one I'd probably play for the most part. They'd make great Rangers with their Dex/Wis bonuses, racial initiative bonus, ability to shift 3 when you use a second wind (pretty great with dwarven armor), and defense bonuses. Oh, and save bonuses against things that can really screw with a mobile striker (daze, dominate, etc.).

Asbestos
2009-08-04, 05:03 PM
Githzerai? Sweet. They are one of the reasons I'm interested in picking up the PHB3 and.....

Oh, wait. That's right. Wizards doesn't care if I'm interested, because I don't give them $10 a month. :smallannoyed: Well, nevermind then.


They do care and hope you still care when the PHB3 comes out. They just hope you care that extra bit to pay that 10 dollars a month to play the full blown Zerth before the PHB3 comes out.

Xallace
2009-08-04, 05:14 PM
Most important part of the article? We get the name for a new class - the Seeker. (It says at the bottom that githzerai tend toward the Ranger, Monk, and Seeker classes.)


Where? I see Avenger.

Tiki Snakes
2009-08-04, 05:27 PM
I like that they've gone to the effort of adding 'directors commentary' so we get an idea of what they're thinking about with previewed matirial.

It was part of what I enjoyed from the old 4th ed preview books, whatever they were called.

RTGoodman
2009-08-04, 09:44 PM
Where? I see Avenger.

Sorry, it was in the CharBuilder, not the actual article. If you don't see it there, it might have been edited/removed in the second update today (that fixed some bug).

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd40/rtg0922/GithSeekerSpoiler.png

So... Psionic Defender (maybe replacement for Psychic Warrior)? Or some new Divine or Primal class? Hmm...

Gralamin
2009-08-04, 09:45 PM
Sorry, it was in the CharBuilder, not the actual article. If you don't see it there, it might have been edited/removed in the second update today (that fixed some bug).

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd40/rtg0922/GithSeekerSpoiler.png

So... Psionic Defender (maybe replacement for Psychic Warrior)? Or some new Divine or Primal class? Hmm...

Nice, I missed that since I've been busy all day rebuilding my RAID array.

Seeker sounds like a Divine Class to me, the type Ioun would employ to get artifacts and such.

RTGoodman
2009-08-04, 09:53 PM
Seeker sounds like a Divine Class to me, the type Ioun would employ to get artifacts and such.

I could see that. I was thinking Psionic might fit if the fluff is about seeking power within yourself, but I could see a Seeker being someone who seeks divinity of some sort or something like that.

jmbrown
2009-08-04, 10:28 PM
WotC pushed the whole "monstrous races as PC" thing on players the hardest with 3E. Even TSR was careful about statting out the more monstrous races. TSR completely removed the half-orc from core 2E because they didn't want players to be using monstrous races and it wasn't until 5 years later that TSR allowed you to play as the more civilized of monster races and even then they said that you likely played as an outcast or were raised among human society much like Gygax's original write up of the drow as player character's.

The githyanki are an ordered, evil, and militant race. It's plausible that a lone deserter could leave the planes to travel the prime but it's highly unlikely and given 4E's points-of-light system, any creepy monster wandering around will likely get stones thrown at him.

4E presents you with racial statistics for civilized monsters so DM's can easily adjust those for players. "Not supporting a race" simply means they won't be given race specific feats and paragon/epic options which is perfectly fine with me.

bosssmiley
2009-08-05, 07:36 AM
TSR was careful about statting out the more monstrous races. TSR completely removed the half-orc from core 2E because they didn't want players to be using monstrous races and it wasn't until 5 years later that TSR allowed you to play as the more civilized of monster races and even then they said that you likely played as an outcast or were raised among human society much like Gygax's original write up of the drow as player character's.

Who is this person who knows not BECMI D&D? :smalltongue:

BECMI had monster race rules from about the Companion set onwards. Just because it was the 800lb gorilla of the company's output (and the primary focus of the idiotic 'no demons, no evil' policy) AD&D != TSR.

PC sphinxes, Nagpas, centaurs, Manscorpions, Arenaeas(sp?), winged minotaurs, fey folk, young dragon, etc.: all were supported as PCs in BD&D. Heck, Shadow Elves (like Drow, only with less fanboi fap) got their own sourcebook IIRC.

/derailment

Thrax
2009-08-05, 08:24 AM
I don't know what they're holding up. If a GM wants to allow a Githyanki player character, he will do that, houseruling some things. That's not like they're going to stop it. I was never a fan of differentiating between player and monster races, and was always allowing my players to play any sentient race they want and have at least basic humanoid body.

However, Githzerai seem interesting anyway, as all the Gith guys are usually.

Sinfire Titan
2009-08-05, 08:41 AM
Mike Mearls: While sometimes itís fun to play against stereotypes, we donít want every villainous race to go the way of the drow.

And they've all ready stepped that direction with the Drow as-is, proving they don't care about the Drow being villains any more.

Kaiyanwang
2009-08-05, 08:50 AM
Mike Mearls: While sometimes itís fun to play against stereotypes, we donít want every villainous race to go the way of the drow.


Translation: since both Gith classes are popular, and are inter-dependent fluff-wise, leads to more profits split them in two different books.

Tempest Fennac
2009-08-05, 09:13 AM
I never liked the idea of "villanous" races (my stance is that it always results in races coming across as 1-dimentional while limiting player choices needlessly if the DM insists on having the listed alignments affecting how races are seen in their games).

NPCMook
2009-08-05, 09:17 AM
Personally there are only two races I'd like to see get a write-up, Centaurs, and Kobolds.

I don't know why, I just seem to enjoy those two races the most.

Kaiyanwang
2009-08-05, 09:24 AM
I never liked the idea of "villanous" races (my stance is that it always results in races coming across as 1-dimentional while limiting player choices needlessly if the DM insists on having the listed alignments affecting how races are seen in their games).

See, if a race is playable or not playable depends from the setting. In one setting the orc is playable, because:

- in that setting orcs are neutral or CN free spirits

- the campaign is evil

- the story allows a good orc raised among uman to free his race from the curse of blood

In another settin is not because:

- +4 strenght? it's OP! (Joking, just an example)

- orcs are totally evil in a good campaing, a la LoTR

- they must remind, setting-wise, distant and mysterious

See? the last thing could fit well with elves. In a nother setting, elves are "unplayable".

If a race is popular, make rule for it. It's up to the DM decide case by case if is playable or not.

Couldn't I bulid a campaign about Gith pirates?

FoE
2009-08-05, 10:32 AM
I don't know what they're holding up. If a GM wants to allow a Githyanki player character, he will do that, houseruling some things. That's not like they're going to stop it.

Yes, but there's a difference between houseruling and "official support," so to speak. People are free to make up their own feats and, hell, their own classes if they want. But WotC isn't going to do the work for you.

Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, for the reasons they pointed out.

I read through the article. It's not bad, albeit a little light on fluff. But if you read the article on the githyanki city that they posted not too long ago, you get a more complete picture of the githzerai's history.

I'd like to see a githzerai city soon.

Jothki
2009-08-05, 11:20 AM
The githyanki are an ordered, evil, and militant race. It's plausible that a lone deserter could leave the planes to travel the prime but it's highly unlikely and given 4E's points-of-light system, any creepy monster wandering around will likely get stones thrown at him.

Can the average villager even tell the difference between a githzerai and a githyanki?

What is the difference, anyway? I know they split off from the same thing due to ideological reasons.

Tiki Snakes
2009-08-05, 11:25 AM
Can the average villager even tell the difference between a githzerai and a githyanki?

What is the difference, anyway? I know they split off from the same thing due to ideological reasons.

I can't even tell out of character. How the hell is a villager going to?

BillyJimBoBob
2009-08-05, 12:00 PM
The githyanki are an ordered, evil, and militant race. It's plausible that a lone deserter could leave the planes to travel the prime but it's highly unlikely and given 4E's points-of-light system, any creepy monster wandering around will likely get stones thrown at him.I don't see how this stands when the Core setting includes the Dragonborn and Tiefling races as player character races. Compared to any traditional fantasy setting, these are monster races. Also, "any creepy monster wandering around will likely get stones thrown at him" doesn't stand when you read through the race descriptions in the 4e PHB. The greatest hint of any dislike is between the Dragonborn and the Tieflings, whose fallen empires were mortal enemies. And yet the PHB takes great pains to describe how a player of either race is not at all required due to this history to hold any kind of grudge or to think any less of a member of the other race.

I don't know what they're holding up. If a GM wants to allow a Githyanki player character, he will do that, houseruling some things. That's not like they're going to stop it.True, people can always house rule things they want to allow in their games. But this does set the bar for how WotC intend the game to be played. Just like the descriptions of the evil alignments make it clear that the players are supposed to be either unaligned or good, and the good and neutral gods are described in the PHB while the evil gods are reserved for the DMG.

FoE
2009-08-05, 12:41 PM
What is the difference, anyway? I know they split off from the same thing due to ideological reasons.

Shortly after the uprising led by Gith against their mindflayer masters, the race was split on how to guard themselves against further enslavement. The githyanki believed that conquest was the only way to safeguard their race, while the githzerai believed consolidation and defence were necessary to the survival of their species.

Yora
2009-08-05, 12:44 PM
One faction lived on the astral plane, the other on Limbo for probably many milennia. If this justifies making them two distinct races is debateable, but done since at least 3.0. Maybe even back in 2nd Ed. Planescape.

Shadow_Elf
2009-08-05, 01:56 PM
But with no PC Githyanki, who will be our official core INT-CON race? The Infernal and Vestige-pact Warlocks, Staff Wizards, Battlesmith Artificers and Shielding and Ensnaring Swordmagi of the universe demand answers!

Dixieboy
2009-08-05, 02:03 PM
:smallannoyed:

... I see no good reason for not making stereotypically "Evil" races playable without homebrew.

Giving stats for goblin and hobgoblin characters in the MM1 seems a bit counterproductive to having anyone play the "good" races anyway.

This reeks, i dunno of what though.

Shadow_Elf
2009-08-05, 02:19 PM
=
Giving stats for goblin and hobgoblin characters in the MM1 seems a bit counterproductive to having anyone play the "good" races anyway.

I believe it says somewhere that the Character stat blocks in the back of the Monster Manual are meant for DM use in the making of NPCs, using the NPC creation rules in the DMG, rather than for use as PC races. So the inclusion of those statblocks is not counter-productive from their design goal of "Drizz't Clone Aversion", from a design standpoint. That PCs use information they designed for DM use is not a design problem.

Project_Mayhem
2009-08-05, 02:33 PM
Shortly after the uprising led by Gith against their mindflayer masters, the race was split on how to guard themselves against further enslavement. The githyanki believed that conquest was the only way to safeguard their race, while the githzerai believed consolidation and defence were necessary to the survival of their species.

Through the teachings of Zerthimon, I have become stronger

jmbrown
2009-08-05, 02:35 PM
I don't see how this stands when the Core setting includes the Dragonborn and Tiefling races as player character races. Compared to any traditional fantasy setting, these are monster races. Also, "any creepy monster wandering around will likely get stones thrown at him" doesn't stand when you read through the race descriptions in the 4e PHB. The greatest hint of any dislike is between the Dragonborn and the Tieflings, whose fallen empires were mortal enemies. And yet the PHB takes great pains to describe how a player of either race is not at all required due to this history to hold any kind of grudge or to think any less of a member of the other race.

Dragonborn and 4E tieflings are also creatures of the prime. The "villaineous" races are considered that for a reason. A gith is born and shaped on the powerfully aligned planes. His attitudes are inherent or powerfully swayed by his place of birth unlike prime creatures whose attitudes are influenced by their upbringing.

There's always exceptions (Drizzt being one of them, the mind flayer prophet in Book of Exalted Deeds, a non-evil succubi, etc.) but these exceptions are super rare and are almost always described as outcasts. They're morally color-coded because their place of birth and/or civilization is morally color coded.

A non-evil drow/goblin/githyanki/what have you is always an outcast and never accepted among their fellow creatures. There's nothing wrong with giving players the options but PC races get full write ups and are basically indoctrinated into D&D 4E canon. Every future product will fully support said race. The PC races are expected to be the norm and if they canonized the villaineous races they'd have to find a way to make them normal parts of the ingame universe and saying "Play the Githyanki if you want to be tyrannical, militant, extremely aggresive, and tainted by the chaotic planes..." goes against the "Epic Hero" style of D&D 4E.

I like the idea of the monster blocks at the end of the monster manuals. They're designed for NPC's but they're on par with the PC races IMO.


Through the teachings of Zerthimon, I have become stronger


Endure. In enduring grow strong.

Dixieboy
2009-08-05, 02:38 PM
Through the teachings of Zerthimon, I have become stronger
Dakkon was a pretty bad example of a gith, being a slave and all.

Offtopic: Were the things said in the Circle canon?
Because if they were.
hooo boy.

jmbrown
2009-08-05, 02:44 PM
Dakkon was a pretty bad example of a gith, being a slave and all.

Offtopic: Were the things said in the Circle canon?
Because if they were.
hooo boy.

The Unbroken Circle of Zerthimon is canon, yes.

Dixieboy
2009-08-05, 03:11 PM
I believe it says somewhere that the Character stat blocks in the back of the Monster Manual are meant for DM use in the making of NPCs, using the NPC creation rules in the DMG, rather than for use as PC races. So the inclusion of those statblocks is not counter-productive from their design goal of "Drizz't Clone Aversion", from a design standpoint. That PCs use information they designed for DM use is not a design problem.
And why not for the Githyanki then?
They seem to be just as worthy to be NPCs.

Shadow_Elf
2009-08-05, 03:12 PM
Then what if i want a Githyanki NPC?

Then go to the back of the MM1 and use the statblock provided. We have Githyanki stats, just not official PC ones with extra features and feat support.

Dixieboy
2009-08-05, 03:16 PM
Then go to the back of the MM1 and use the statblock provided. We have Githyanki stats, just not official PC ones with extra features and feat support.
Now I'm confused.

Let's take this slowly so my puny brain can follow.

Hobgoblins get "official pc ones", right?
Githyanki does not.

Githyanki just gets "Generic statblock for enemy thing to kill", right?

If i understood this correctly:
Why?

Morty
2009-08-05, 03:19 PM
Githyanki get PC stats just like most "villianous" races. It's just that they won't get expanded options like some MM races such as gnomes and, apparently, githzerai.

Shadow_Elf
2009-08-05, 03:28 PM
Now I'm confused.

Let's take this slowly so my puny brain can follow.

Hobgoblins get "official pc ones", right?
Githyanki does not.

Githyanki just gets "Generic statblock for enemy thing to kill", right?

If i understood this correctly:
Why?

PC Races Only appearing in PC Books:


Dragonborn
Dwarves
Elves
Eladrin
Halflings
Half-Elves
Humans
Tieflings
Devas
Half-Orcs
Goliaths
Genasi
Kalashtars

PC Races given weak "NPC" Stablocks in the MM1, and then subsequently given "PC" write-ups in a book or dragon article:


Drow
Gnomes
Shifters (Longtooth and Razorclaw)
Warforged
Doppelgangers (Changelings)
Shadar-Kai
Minotaurs
Gnolls
Githzerai (coming soon)

Races given only "NPC" statblocks in MM1 or MM2, with no announced plans for PC writeups in future books or articles:


Bugbears
Githyanki
Goblins
Hobgoblins
Kobolds
Orcs
Bullywugs
Duergar
Kenkus


So no, Githyanki have and will have for the forseeable future as much support as Hobgoblins.
Does that answer your question?

Dixieboy
2009-08-05, 03:33 PM
As much as is doable by someone not writing the books, yes.