Im I the only one who doesn't understand...

[Silentlee]

Why there are 12094053089 playable races in DnD

Human(no sub races. Just red/yellow/orange/purple/white/black)
Halfings(the Frodo type)
Elves(2 sub races not the Drow)
Half-elves
Dwarves(no sub races)
and maaayybe a few(2-3) more should be in there

beyond that....its gets absurd and broken. I would explain more but i want to see what others say


DO NOT FEED THE TROLL and you know what i mean.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Part of Fantasy is being able to play a Naga if you want to.

[Silentlee]

That I understand. On semi side note...why not just include them in the MM and not charge more $$$ just to see it as a PC character.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

How much money would they make if they did that?

[Silentlee]

30ish bucks less per person who wanted to play a Naga

[SilverClawShift]

Options are not a bad thing, especially when factoring in that D&D is not a single planet full of each and every monster/race/class/NPC listed in the books.

D&D is a game system, and a highly modifiable one at that. A DM can create an entire world from scratch by picking a main player race (probably human), a few player races that stand out from the humans in noteworthy ways both culturally and in terms of abilities, and then figuring out how this world would get shaped by the interacting forces.

Eberron is a great example of how the nature of a race can change based on the world it is, creating a distinct and readily identifiable flavor. Dinosaur riding halfling streaking across open plains, Drow rangers stalking through dense forrests (instead of underground caves), and artifically created soldier (warforged) trying to find a place in a world that never expected them to do anything but die when they were done serving their purpose.

A world where every single race existed might be overkill, but having as many races as possible ready to be used and explored at the table is 100% positive, as far as I'm concerned.

*EDIT*

Also, there's a smackload of humanish sub-races. Illumians, Underfolk, Imaskari, and any planetouched human. And that's off the top of my head :smalltongue:

[Tequila Sunrise]

People like options. *shrug* All those races in one campaign setting might be absurd, but are they any more absurd than the hundreds of monster races running around? When it comes to subraces, I don't often bother creating a new country/newly discovered land/history for them: I just say "These elves live in the next valley over from the regular elves, which is why they're marginally different."

[oxybe]

because not everyone wants to play "middle earth: the RPG"? :smallwink:

some people want to play more exotic races. the makers of the game, as well as people on the various forums, are happy to provide them.

if you're the GM you're free to limit the player races to a certain few, but as a whole, it doesn't hurt.

[Silentlee]

I loves this Forum

[Zore]

I'm going to start by saying one thing, people like having choices. Thats really about it. Why limit yourself to pleasing a small subset of people who enjoy exactly the thing you enjoy when you can appeal to a whole lot more people by giving them variety and choice in what they want?

Different races fit in different settings, and honestly variety is the spice of life. Sure I could play a human or halfling... but why not play a set of twin bodies who share a singular soul (Dvati) or a fey or some other character? I don't like the generic PHB races at all, when I design settings I rarely even include humans (though dwarves can get a pass occasionally).

[Tempest Fennac]

There's actually several more Elf subtypes as well as some syb-types of other core races ( http://crystalkeep.com/d20/rules/DnD3.5Index-Races.pdf ). I see variety as a good thing, but the fact that there seems to be more races which are merely differently proportioned humans irritates me (especially considering how Half Elves and Half Orcs are standard races dispite just being the result of humans mating with other humanoids rather then being particularly distinctive combined with a lack of official anthro-fox races*). I tend to homebrew races if I want to use them or I just nerf existing races down to LA 0 to make them usable.



*I ended up making my own in the end: http://forum.mydndgame.com/index.php/topic,136.0.html /

[Altima]

What's really funny is when you realize that, at some point, people stood up and said that they'd like to play ALL those subraces.

Also, another reason for all the subraces? Better stats for certain classes.

[AstralFire]

D&D 3 is a Generic Medieval Fantasy system. This means it generalizes very poorly to things like Indiana Jones, but it is meant to be highly customizable with regards to things in the moderately large subgenre that it relates to.

[Foryn Gilnith]

That I understand. On semi side note...why not just include them in the MM and not charge more $$$ just to see it as a PC character.

I'd prefer my monster manual to fit in one hand and be carried easily.

[The Neoclassic]

It's the same reason they have so many prestige classes, spells, magic items, feats, base classes... They need stuff to fill all those splatbooks with so that they can keep making money.

And, yes, people are right about the flexibility. I doubt you'd find many people who'd actually use all those races in a campaign world. More races, more options for people to use when they create their settings. Options are good. :smallcool:

[AstralFire]

And it's still not enough, honestly, as a lot of the books focus on repackaging or making better mechanical versions of something earlier.

My primary homebrew campaign setting does not use a single PHB race except humans. The other WotC races it used was Goliaths, when they came out and I redid the setting for 3.5. Every other single race was made by me. I don't use it much these days because of the internet; I went and said "what if other animals evolved to become sapient and not necessarily even humanoid in shape", and as a result when I'd show it online at other places I'd get a stock response of "lolfur."

There were seven houses of sapient beings; Biped Mammals, Quadruped Mammals, Insectoids, Aquatics, Avians, Golems, and Reptilians.

I'd never even heard of furries before.

[jmbrown]

That I understand. On semi side note...why not just include them in the MM and not charge more $$$ just to see it as a PC character.

In 4E, all civilized monstrous races include stat blocks at the end of the book. The only difference between them and PC races is that monstrous races will never have race related feats or class variants.

You can still play a gnoll or a drow, Wizards just isn't going to stick them into their "this race regularly adventures and does other heroic things" canon.

[Tempest Fennac]

That sounds like a decent campaign world, Astral (I think people on GitP seem more tollerant of Furries then some other places so you could probably post those here without any problems). I know I'm bias but I tend to find half animals more interresting then the dozens of human variants.

[Doc Roc]

D&D 3 is a Generic Medieval Fantasy system. This means it generalizes very poorly to things like Indiana Jones[..]

I have an Iron Kingdoms Campaign that strongly disagrees and suggests that Indiana Jones can be run in any system.

[AstralFire]

I have an Iron Kingdoms Campaign that strongly disagrees and suggests that Indiana Jones can be run in any system.

It should be noted that my knowledge of 3rd Party D&D supplements is almost nil.

[Umael]

Why there are 12094053089 playable races in DnD

Human(no sub races. Just red/yellow/orange/purple/white/black)
Halfings(the Frodo type)
Elves(2 sub races not the Drow)
Half-elves
Dwarves(no sub races)
and maaayybe a few(2-3) more should be in there

beyond that....its gets absurd and broken. I would explain more but i want to see what others say


DO NOT FEED THE TROLL and you know what i mean.

Why must your halflings be from Middle-Earth?
Should human and elves really be cross-fertile?
What do I need dwarves for?

I can create any world I want. Even humans are optional. The only thing that isn't optional is that I HAVE a race, followed by it being highly recommended to have something akin to variety and options for the players.

In Rokugan, the default race is human. You can have other races (Nezumi, Naga, Tenku, Kitsune), but it is a chore to incorporate one of them into the group and still keep the game resembling the original setting. However, to distinguish the various humans, you select the Clan for your human, where a samurai bushi of the Crab Clan has a very different style and feel than a samurai bushi of the Crane Clan. This is both mechanics and fluff, for the record.

In Iron Heroes, a variant d20 system, the default race is also human, and no other races are included. However, you can customize your human with traits, giving the game a "Build-a-Race" feel to it.

In Arcana Unearthed, another variant d20 system, you can play humans or one of six or seven new races. But elves? Dwarves? What are those?

In one of the games that one of people in our gaming group is going to run, the world is nebulous, undecided. I can suggest various character concepts, which may involve a particular race/class combo, including subrace, prestige class, racial substitution levels, and racial paragon levels. If the concept is good, both in being appealing to roleplaying potential for everyone and lacking in abuse of the game mechanics, I get the character concept. Reserve engineering gives my character a home, giving detail to an as-yet undetailed world.

And finally, why not? I probably will NEVER use 90% of the material in my books, but I have the material, I know I can use it if the situation comes up, and if nothing else, the material makes for a good read.

[jmbrown]

I'm sure this has been brought up to death, but "race" is a poor term. It insists that all creatures are derived from humans or as fantasy games call it "humanoids." That means somewhere in the evolutionary line there's a common "link" that all humanoid creatures derived from.

Either that or the gods have weird terminology. I have yet to read a fantasy RPG that calls the various races "species." Even then, species is probably a misnomer because not every creature can interbreed.

[AstralFire]

Things that are different species aren't necessarily the same genus, and I don't think genuses guarantee intrabreeding within the genus.

Elf and Orc, with their ability to interbreed with humans, probably are different off-shoots. But people don't want to use the term 'species' in fantasy at all because it 'sounds futuristic.' And using the word 'breed' would just sound funny.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

That means somewhere in the evolutionary line there's a common "link" that all humanoid creatures derived from.

Either that or the gods have weird terminology.
Given the way interbreeding works, it sounds like the Gods used a base genetic template for many of the different species.

[Book Wyrm]

My biggest problem is not the large number of distinct races in DnD, but the fantastic number of sub-races. Why are their 15 sub-races of elves and 14 sub-races of gnomes (according to crystal keep)? Is all that really necessary? Some people will argue for the different races based on environment, but there aren't different races of humans for every environment in real life, and not every "desert race" in real life shares the same "characteristics" (compare the Pueblo indians to medieval Moroccans). There should be one maybe two sub-races with the option to choose environmental or social traits. But that would eliminate all the munchkins playing Gray Elf wizards and Whisper Gnome assassins, and we can't have that.

[quick_comment]

In DnD, race includes culture as well. There are certainly tons of different human cultures in real life.

In DnD, some human cultures have adaptable offspring, and some teach their children from an early age how to focus incarnum. Some elves train with rapiers and are witty and charming, and others have to survive in the snow and are ugly and brutish.

[Thoughtbot360]

I'm going to start by saying one thing, people like having choices. Thats really about it. Why limit yourself to pleasing a small subset of people who enjoy exactly the thing you enjoy when you can appeal to a whole lot more people by giving them variety and choice in what they want?

Different races fit in different settings, and honestly variety is the spice of life. Sure I could play a human or halfling... but why not play a set of twin bodies who share a singular soul (Dvati) or a fey or some other character? I don't like the generic PHB races at all, when I design settings I rarely even include humans (though dwarves can get a pass occasionally).

I have to admit, I like your attitude. One thing that always bothers me in any D&D setting with a diverse collection of high-CR monsters is why lesser humanoids (specifically, Humans) survive in a world where there are thing that cannot be harmed without strong enough magic weapons (of which the same setting assumes are rare and frequently stolen by more powerful beings when discovered), things that are both stronger and smarter than they are, things that can outrun horses, and things that can trample cities.

In other words, exactly how much of an advantage *is* the Human's extra feat, anyway? I mean, everyone and their mother on this forum says Wizards beat Fighters, but Fighters are basically a bundle of bonus feats and d10 hit dice. Wizards are superior because of spell-but there are creatures born with Spell-like abilities.

In logic speak:

Fighters, who are full of feats and big HD < Wizards, who are full of spells
Humans have a single bonus feat, vs. Creature X's HD and Spell-like abilities
Therefore, Creature X > Humans.

Also, any one of the other PHB races, just by looking at them, can be described as "Humans, but with extra survival traits."

Elves-Humans, but longer, acuter ears and even longer individual lifespans
Dwarves-Humans, but build sturdier and can turn caves into apartments.
Halflings-Humans, but shorter and better at hiding and sneaking.
Gnomes-Humans, but Dr. Dolittle with innate magical abilities and resistances.
Half Orcs-Humans, but Stronger and more vicious.
Orcs-Humans, but REALLY Stronger and vicious!
Half Elves-See elves, then half that. Whoa, they really are "half" elves!

Notice that all of those except for Half elves have stat penalties in the game as a rather feeble attempt to "balance" them. Of course, then we have, without even leaving the Humanoid creature type, the Bugbear (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/bugbear.htm):

* +4 Strength, +2 Dexterity, +2 Constitution, -2 Charisma.
* Medium size.
* A bugbear’s base land speed is 30 feet.
* Racial Hit Dice: A bugbear begins with three levels of humanoid, which provide 3d8 Hit Dice, a base attack bonus of +2, and base saving throw bonuses of Fort +1, Ref +3, and Will +1.
* Racial Skills: A bugbear’s humanoid levels give it skill points equal to 6 × (2 + Int modifier). Its class skills are Climb, Hide, Listen, Move Silently, Search, and Spot.
* Racial Feats: A bugbear’s humanoid levels give it two feats. (suck on that, Humanity!)
* +3 natural armor bonus.
* +4 racial bonus on Move Silently checks.
* Special Qualities: Darkvision 60 ft., scent.
* Automatic Languages: Common, Goblin. Bonus Languages: Draconic, Elven, Giant, Gnoll, Orc.
* Favored Class: Rogue.
* Level adjustment +1.

+1 level adjustment? Just think of it as multiclass dipping. Specifically: Taking a level in Badass (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TookALevelInBadass)


Er....the point that I'm trying to make is: It almost makes sense to force a choice when making a new fantasy setting: Humans or Fantasy races?

Heck, I'd think it'd be cool if the "ancient civilization that got destroyed" was actually human civilization itself, devastated when it somehow came into contact with the wrong monsters.

[Fax Celestis]

+1 level adjustment? Just think of it as multiclass dipping. Specifically: Taking a level in Badass (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TookALevelInBadass)

You, uh, forgot the 3 HD. Bugbears are ECL 4.

[Lappy9000]

I don't care so much about the quantity of the races as much as the quality of them. Many races (especially sub-races) only have one or two mechanical tweaks, often fairly uncreative ones. Some races are flat out bland to the point where you wonder why they were even created (many of the MM3 races lie in this category; I like Kenku, though).

[Zeta Kai]

My primary homebrew campaign setting does not use a single PHB race except humans. The other WotC races it used was Goliaths, when they came out and I redid the setting for 3.5. Every other single race was made by me. I don't use it much these days because of the internet; I went and said "what if other animals evolved to become sapient and not necessarily even humanoid in shape", and as a result when I'd show it online at other places I'd get a stock response of "lolfur."

I would like to see more of this setting, actually. I've enjoyed looking through you Anteheroes system, & I'd love to see you take on a fantasy world.

And, Thoughtbot360, yes, you're right. Bugbears are teh brokenz as a PC race. Whoever wrote/edited them was on crack at the time. They have the most undervalued LA that I've ever seen.

[Fax Celestis]

I would like to see more of this setting, actually. I've enjoyed looking through you Anteheroes system, & I'd love to see you take on a fantasy world.

And, Thoughtbot360, yes, you're right. Bugbears are teh brokenz as a PC race. Whoever wrote/edited them was on crack at the time. They have the most undervalued LA that I've ever seen.

What? They're LEVEL FOUR. Of COURSE they get two feats: one for 1st and one for 3rd. I know I'd rather have 4 class levels with features than 3 Monstrous Humanoid HD and a level adjustment. I mean, sure, great adds. But that's all they are: adds.

[Susano-wo]

I don't think its the two feats, I think its the huge stat boosts. But yeah, I think with the inherent disadvantage of the 3 HD having no features, its probably pretty balanced. 5th lvl Fighter has 2 feats up on him assuming he takes 1lvl of fighter, though to take out the damage/ hit boost you would have to be a half-orc fighter with weap focus and spec as your feats, and he cold have the focus already...then he has his extra dex (which can be helpful) and his xtra con (which will be helpful). So maybe its not that it is overall more powerful, just that it makes a better fighter than you can muster with a PHB class. I think other classs that have more of a progression than fighter would be hindered more
Though the biggest thing I would worry about is the +3 AC factor. 15% lower chance to be hit can be ridiculous, especially if you have a ridicuous AC from your class combo (once he gets ful plate he would have an AC of 24 without magic bonuses, and he could have potentailly a 21 AC as a monk/Sworsage/any other class that gives AC from Wis)

ALso, RE furries. People often confuse anthro races with a 'furry' romantic/sexual fascination. Its not helpful that "The two art often combined."

[AstralFire]

I would like to see more of this setting, actually. I've enjoyed looking through you Anteheroes system, & I'd love to see you take on a fantasy world.


That sounds like a decent campaign world, Astral (I think people on GitP seem more tollerant of Furries then some other places so you could probably post those here without any problems). I know I'm bias but I tend to find half animals more interresting then the dozens of human variants.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6659820#post6659820

At request, beginning the work to get this up to my current standard...

[Thoughtbot360]

You, uh, forgot the 3 HD. Bugbears are ECL 4.

Doesn't matter. The stats say +1 level adjustment, therefore the 3 HD are just another goodie for this "level of badass".

Think of it as if instead of 1d12 per level, Barbarians got 2d6 per level. More dice, but same (if slightly better) results.

[Fax Celestis]

Doesn't matter. The stats say +1 level adjustment, therefore the 3 HD are just another goodie for this "level of badass".

Think of it as if instead of 1d12 per level, Barbarians got 2d6 per level. More dice, but same (if slightly better) results.

...w...what? Do you not know how level adjustment works? o_O


Level Adjustment

This line is included in the entries of creatures suitable for use as player characters or as cohorts (usually creatures with Intelligence scores of at least 3 and possessing opposable thumbs). Add this number to the creature’s total Hit Dice, including class levels, to get the creature’s effective character level (ECL). A character’s ECL affects the experience the character earns, the amount of experience the character must have before gaining a new level, and the character’s starting equipment.
A bugbear is ECL 4, the equivalent of a 4th level human fighter.

[Foryn Gilnith]

It was applied inconsistently, most notably in a few 3.0 published works that went into a decent amount of details with "Monsters as PCs", elaborating on what I think even then was incorrect.

[Kylarra]

More specifically, Fax you want to be quoting from monsters as races (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monstersAsRaces.htm) to get the blurb about racial hit dice explicitly.


Level Adjustment and Effective Character Level

To determine the effective character level (ECL) of a monster character, add its level adjustment to its racial Hit Dice and character class levels.

Use ECL instead of character level to determine how many experience points a monster character needs to reach its next level. Also use ECL to determine starting wealth for a monster character.

[SparkMandriller]

Doesn't matter. The stats say +1 level adjustment, therefore the 3 HD are just another goodie for this "level of badass".

How could anyone think this ever. :/

[arguskos]

How could anyone think this ever. :/
Because the LA and ECL rules are obtuse unless you take a LOT of effort to figure it out? Let's give the poor fellow some credit here.

[Thoughtbot360]

Because the LA and ECL rules are obtuse unless you take a LOT of effort to figure it out? Let's give the poor fellow some credit here.

Thanks.

And in hindsight, it appears you're all right. Having never actually bought savage species, and only ever read through the 3.0 monster manual but not the 3.5 one, I guess I took the words "level adjustment" at face value. Also, while humanoid levels are superior to commoner, they are rather bland compared to true PC levels or even levels in the "Warrior" NPC class.

Of course the question then becomes "Why not make level adjustment include the bonus Hit dice?" Is anyone (including the DM) ever really going to add humanoid levels after the base HD?

[SparkMandriller]

Oh, I'm not trying to say getting confused by DnD's crazy rules is bad. Just having them explained and then dismissing that explanation in favour of believing that bugbears are some sorta super monster seems kinda wierd.

[Wings of Peace]

Why there are 12094053089 playable races in DnD

Human(no sub races. Just red/yellow/orange/purple/white/black)
Halfings(the Frodo type)
Elves(2 sub races not the Drow)
Half-elves
Dwarves(no sub races)
and maaayybe a few(2-3) more should be in there

beyond that....its gets absurd and broken. I would explain more but i want to see what others say


DO NOT FEED THE TROLL and you know what i mean.

Because short of the Strongheart Halfling it's not like the Human is one of the top choices for most absurd optimization combos because of the extra feat. *Cough* Just saying.

[Devils_Advocate]

Of course the question then becomes "Why not make level adjustment include the bonus Hit dice?" Is anyone (including the DM) ever really going to add humanoid levels after the base HD?
Because a level adjustment is actually more the opposite of racial hit dice than it is the same thing. Racial hit dice are mandatory levels that you're required to take. Your level adjustment is the number of levels that you have to give up.

Racial hit dice add to a character's BAB, saves, hit points, skill points, feats, and max skill ranks exactly like giving him normal class levels. Your character level equals your total hit dice from both race and classes. This is the number used to determine how spells effect you, when they refer to hit dice. Your character level determines when you become an Epic character (I'm pretty sure). There may be other stuff I'm forgetting.

ECL is used in place of a character's real level for purposes of XP and leveling up and... that's pretty much it. Theoretically (often very theoretically), characters of the same ECL are roughly equally powerful.

Yeah, it's easy to think that "level adjustment" means the number of class levels you have to give up, just like it's easy to think that a monitor is a "computer". But it's a misunderstanding borne of ignorance; once you understand the reason for the correct use of the terminology, it's easy to see why it's correct. A monitor isn't responsible for the actual computing, and racial hit dice don't adjust your level any more than normal class levels do. Just like class levels, racial hit dice are part of your level.
The reason that elves and dwarves and gnomes don't pwn the hell out of humans is partly that humans are way more numerous and faster-breeding. Humans don't have as high a percentage of high-level individuals, because they don't live as long and don't level any faster. But they still have a big total number of high-level individuals anyway because their total population is bigger. That these high-level people also have a bunch of 1st-level Commoner peasants that they can use as cannon fodder if need be and unskilled labor on a large scale the rest of the time gives them an advantage.

Also, even if it were feasible, the elder races wouldn't try to wipe out humans at this point, because while humans are warmongering bastards to a degree, there are other races that are so much worse it isn't even funny. Goblinoids, orcs, gnolls, etc. take being evil, violent, primitive, short-lived, fast-breeding, filthy barbarians way farther than humans. So the demihumans would wipe them out first, if they could, which they can't. And then there are the really dangerous things like giants and mind flayers and beholders.

And you know what? Humans serve as an extremely convenient buffer against all of those threats. Humans are the big target, meaning that they absorb most of the attacks from the real bastards, and do most of the fighting back against them. So humans and evil monsters spend a lot of time fighting each other, meaning that both groups become less of a threat to the dwarves in their mountain strongholds, and the elves in their hidden forest villages, and the gnomes in their illusion-shielded burrows. And the other demihumans will totally aid the humans in their fight against the monsters to keep fighting away from their own homelands. It's a lot like how a bunch of celestials actively keep the Blood War going because the fiends fighting each other is preferable to them fighting the celestials.

Oh, and the halflings? They'd generally prefer not to go to war, because that means a whole lot of them getting killed even if they win. So their response to an invading army is generally to get the **** out of Dodge. This is why the halflings don't have lands of their own, and they're totally comfortable with that. They prefer a nomadic lifestyle to having to defend a permanent home with their lives. So they don't need to win at war because they refuse to even play that game, and this has by and large worked out fairly well for them.


Why don't uberpowerful things run the world in D&D? Well, in a plausible campaign world, they do. A human king generally gets to rule because he has the backing of a deity or at least a great wyrm or an archmage or something. At the very least, he has to avoid pissing off too badly anyone who could easily kill him and get away with it.

The king may have a royal guard to protect him from assassination and an army to protect his kingdom from invasion, but they really can't defend him against some of the things that threaten a significantly influential person in a D&D campaign world. Defending against real power takes more real power.

[imperialspectre]

Why don't uberpowerful things run the world in D&D? Well, in a plausible campaign world, they do. A human king generally gets to rule because he has the backing of a deity or at least a great wyrm or an archmage or something. At the very least, he has to avoid pissing off too badly anyone who could easily kill him and get away with it.

The king may have a royal guard to protect him from assassination and an army to protect his kingdom from invasion, but they really can't defend him against some of the things that threaten a significantly influential person in a D&D campaign world. Defending against real power takes more real power.

Almost. A human king gets to rule because he has the backing of human PCs. Adventurers seriously dominate CR-appropriate monsters as long as the adventurers are full casters or something nearly as good. Basically, civilization rests more or less at the mercy of people who can chain-bind vrocks and use them as elite hit squads for whoever doesn't do their bidding, to borrow the phrasing from Races of War (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=9776618&postcount=2).

[seedjar]

I'd never even heard of furries before.

*patpat*
The internet has wronged many of us.
~Joe

[Kaiyanwang]

My biggest problem is not the large number of distinct races in DnD, but the fantastic number of sub-races. Why are their 15 sub-races of elves and 14 sub-races of gnomes (according to crystal keep)? Is all that really necessary? Some people will argue for the different races based on environment, but there aren't different races of humans for every environment in real life, and not every "desert race" in real life shares the same "characteristics" (compare the Pueblo indians to medieval Moroccans). There should be one maybe two sub-races with the option to choose environmental or social traits. But that would eliminate all the munchkins playing Gray Elf wizards and Whisper Gnome assassins, and we can't have that.

You could have one campaign with race 1 and 2 of elf, 1 and 2 of dwarves and 1 and 2 of gnomes.

Another one with race 2 and 3 of elves, 1, 2, 3 of gnomes, 3 of dwarves.

Races are "actors" that make your world live. If you need a role to fill, you call the right "actor".

[Roland St. Jude]

The reason that elves and dwarves and gnomes don't pwn the hell out of humans is partly that humans are way more numerous and faster-breeding. Humans don't have as high a percentage of high-level individuals, because they don't live as long and don't level any faster. But they still have a big total number of high-level individuals anyway because their total population is bigger. That these high-level people also have a bunch of 1st-level Commoner peasants that they can use as cannon fodder if need be and unskilled labor on a large scale the rest of the time gives them an advantage.

Also, even if it were feasible, the elder races wouldn't try to wipe out humans at this point, because while humans are warmongering bastards to a degree, there are other races that are so much worse it isn't even funny. Goblinoids, orcs, gnolls, etc. take being evil, violent, primitive, short-lived, fast-breeding, filthy barbarians way farther than humans. So the demihumans would wipe them out first, if they could, which they can't. And then there are the really dangerous things like giants and mind flayers and beholders.

And you know what? Humans serve as an extremely convenient buffer against all of those threats. Humans are the big target, meaning that they absorb most of the attacks from the real bastards, and do most of the fighting back against them. So humans and evil monsters spend a lot of time fighting each other, meaning that both groups become less of a threat to the dwarves in their mountain strongholds, and the elves in their hidden forest villages, and the gnomes in their illusion-shielded burrows. And the other demihumans will totally aid the humans in their fight against the monsters to keep fighting away from their own homelands. It's a lot like how a bunch of celestials actively keep the Blood War going because the fiends fighting each other is preferable to them fighting the celestials.

Oh, and the halflings? They'd generally prefer not to go to war, because that means a whole lot of them getting killed even if they win. So their response to an invading army is generally to get the **** out of Dodge. This is why the halflings don't have lands of their own, and they're totally comfortable with that. They prefer a nomadic lifestyle to having to defend a permanent home with their lives. So they don't need to win at war because they refuse to even play that game, and this has by and large worked out fairly well for them.


Why don't uberpowerful things run the world in D&D? Well, in a plausible campaign world, they do. A human king generally gets to rule because he has the backing of a deity or at least a great wyrm or an archmage or something. At the very least, he has to avoid pissing off too badly anyone who could easily kill him and get away with it.

The king may have a royal guard to protect him from assassination and an army to protect his kingdom from invasion, but they really can't defend him against some of the things that threaten a significantly influential person in a D&D campaign world. Defending against real power takes more real power.

I was going to type all this before I got lazy. The only thing I'd add is that other fantasy races are typically written to have racial enmity with other races, isolationist and often clannish natures, and other barriers to their social interaction with others. Which means that humans end up with the advantages that come with broad based trading partners/allies. Also, fantasy races also tend to be portrayed as living in a single environment (and those that leave this environment become even more isolated sub-races) for to cultural reasons. This limits their desire and ability for expansion. Humans adaptability isn't just the matter of a feat; it's usually portrayed as a willingness to live anywhere, adapt to any setting, and, at least in older editions before it was viewed as limiting player choice, more able to excel at any professional endeavor they chose (i.e. class). These are the traditional reasons given throughout the history of D&D and in other fantasy settings as well. They've always been enough for my games. Now if you change some of these traits of humans or other races, obviously, the results may change.

[Telonius]

A bugbear is ECL 4, the equivalent of a 4th level human fighter.

I think the original objection was that bugbears are essentially born as strong as a level 4 human fighter. If that's the case, how is it they haven't enslaved the rest of the races? The answer to questions like that is generally found in fluff - they can't organize as well, they're constantly infighting, they pay no attention to spells, etc. And some of it really does just involve suspension of disbelief or willingness to treat monsters as monsters.

[Gnaeus]

In 4E, all civilized monstrous races include stat blocks at the end of the book. The only difference between them and PC races is that monstrous races will never have race related feats or class variants.

You can still play a gnoll or a drow, Wizards just isn't going to stick them into their "this race regularly adventures and does other heroic things" canon.

But you can't play a Centaur, or an Ogre, or a Dragon, or a Treant. Because 4E philosophy is that all characters must be interchangeable and choices in character creation are a bad thing.

[Kylarra]

I think the original objection was that bugbears are essentially born as strong as a level 4 human fighter. If that's the case, how is it they haven't enslaved the rest of the races? The answer to questions like that is generally found in fluff - they can't organize as well, they're constantly infighting, they pay no attention to spells, etc. And some of it really does just involve suspension of disbelief or willingness to treat monsters as monsters.It is the same way that every single humanoid race is of teen age (or equivalent racial conversion) or higher. It is simply a minimum age (or skill level) you would expect to encounter such a being.

[Umael]

But you can't play a Centaur, or an Ogre, or a Dragon, or a Treant. Because 4E philosophy is that all characters must be interchangeable and choices in character creation are a bad thing.

Ah, yes, gratuitous 4th ed bashing.

You know, if might have something to do with the fact that 4E has been around for... a year now? And 3.5 has how many years on it?

Give WotC time, and they will produce more books, giving more options, because that's what they do - it's money, it's business, it's what they do for a living.

[ThunderCat]

I think the original objection was that bugbears are essentially born as strong as a level 4 human fighter. If that's the case, how is it they haven't enslaved the rest of the races? The answer to questions like that is generally found in fluff - they can't organize as well, they're constantly infighting, they pay no attention to spells, etc. And some of it really does just involve suspension of disbelief or willingness to treat monsters as monsters.I can see it now: "OK folks, here's how we do it. Each race chooses its most normal and insignificant members, so its human dirt farmers against bugbear brutes. 500 of each. Then those people go head to toe with each other one-on-one. No outside support, and that includes magical items. Elminster, you stay out of it".

I don't see the problem. Mythology is full of stories of monsters so powerful that normal humans were powerless against them. It was always about someone extraordinary protecting the common folk, and I guess it is in D&D too. And as you mentioned, organisation plays into it as well, as do numbers. There are plenty of animals (medieval) humans wouldn't stand a chance against, but they' were always been brought down by cooperation and superior tactics.

[BillyJimBoBob]

Humans adaptability isn't just the matter of a feat; it's usually portrayed as a willingness to live anywhere, adapt to any setting, and, at least in older editions before it was viewed as limiting player choice, more able to excel at any professional endeavor they chose (i.e. class). These are the traditional reasons given throughout the history of D&D and in other fantasy settings as well. They've always been enough for my games. Now if you change some of these traits of humans or other races, obviously, the results may change.But they have been changed. Edition by edition, each has added or subtracted their own take on the Humans vs. the other races philosophy/balance/whatever. I think you refer to 1e, where Dwarves could only be (memory serves me poorly) Fighters or Thieves, and then only to 9th level or so, and Elves could only be Fighters or Magic-Users, also to about 9th level. And this evolved from the Oe where Dwarf and Elf were not just different races, they were essentially a race/class summed up with the word "Dwarf" or "Elf."

Then the level caps were removed, while the racial advantages remained. In AD&D Elves were better with longswords and longbows, and both were very good weapons. So you saw a lot of Elven Fighters. GM house rules also came into play. I had a GM who loved to add flavor to the non-human races. Elves could use "Elven Bows", which did D8 damage vs. D6, or "Elven Longswords", which gave yet another +1 to hit. Dwarves had racial axes, and Gnomes had racial pickaxes. Every race got advantageous modifications except Humans. And he removed all class restrictions. So we had a completely non-human party, and the Elven Paladin rarely had to stand up out of his bed roll during night encounters since he could shoot 2 arrows from his Elven Longbow which did better damage than swinging a sword at the foes.

I'm considering going the other way entirely. I prefer the standard fantasy races, Tolkien races if you will. And I don't care at all the the Tiefling and the Dragonborn in 4e. So I've toyed with the idea of making all races "Humans", but applying the racial characteristics of the 4e races.

It works, for the most part. Take Halflings: The Small size can either be moved to Medium, or retained and either given a slightly larger height and weight range or left alone entirely. The racial ability of Second Chance and the racial Feat of Lost in the Crowd represent specialized fighting styles. Eladrin Fey Step can be explained as a geographical/cultural/national tie to the Feydark, same as it is now, without having to make them a separate race. Elves, Dwarves, Tieflings, all work fine as Humans with different capabilities. The Dragonborn, well...Dragonbreath is the only real culprit difficult to justify as an ability any different Human culture might have developed over time.


But you can't play a Centaur, or an Ogre, or a Dragon, or a Treant. Because 4E philosophy is that all characters must be interchangeable and choices in character creation are a bad thing.I always love hearing from people who obviously haven't played 4e. Because it's impossible to make this statement with a straight face if you've seen the different classes in play in a 4e game. And assuming that you're a fan of 3.5, it becomes even more amusing. You're attacking 4e for making choices in character creation a bad thing, when in 3.x writing "Fighter" or "Monk" on your character sheet is a bad thing as far as a choice in character creation goes. Try again, there are many legitimate beefs with 4e to harp on that making stuff up out of whole cloth doesn't need to be done.

[only1doug]

You're attacking 4e for making choices in character creation a bad thing, when in 3.x writing "Fighter" or "Monk" on your character sheet is a bad thing as far as a choice in character creation goes. Try again, there are many legitimate beefs with 4e to harp on that making stuff up out of whole cloth doesn't need to be done.

Now, now, be fair... There is no problem with writing Monk or fighter, Its taking levels in the classes that is the bad choice (althought to be really fair we should say taking more than 2 levels in either class is the bad plan, they can be useful as dips).

[Fax Celestis]

I always love hearing from people who obviously haven't played 4e. Because it's impossible to make this statement with a straight face if you've seen the different classes in play in a 4e game.

He wasn't talking about class, he was talking about race. Show me rules for playing a treant or a centaur or a satyr or an ogre.

[Devils_Advocate]

Fax, Gnaeus wrote

4E philosophy is that all characters must be interchangeable and choices in character creation are a bad thing.which is what people are responding to.

Even "all races are interchangeable" would be inaccurate. Different races give different bonuses and are most suitable for different things. You could say that the differences are relatively trivial, much as you could say the same thing about the differences between the PHB races in 3.5.

They did decide to get rid of the big, easily massively unbalancing differences that Savage Species allowed for. Probably because they were easily massively unbalancing.

[JonestheSpy]

Going back to the original post, I think it's pretty widely accepted that it's moslty about splatbook fodder.

That being said, i think there's a fair amount of nifty stuff to pick and choose from when designing a campaign world. What's utterly ridiculous is the thought that all these races and sub-races would all exist together at the same time and same planet (unless your campaign is someplace like Sigil where the endless variety without rhyme or reason is the point).

[Berserk Monk]

12,094,053,089? Twelve Billion, ninety-four million, fifty-three thousand, eighty-nine? Are you sure on this?

[PLUN]

12,094,053,089? Twelve Billion, ninety-four million, fifty-three thousand, eighty-nine? Are you sure on this?

Yeah, I don't think he's counting the elf varieties right. There are Greyhawk versions too.

[Silentlee]

12,094,053,089? Twelve Billion, ninety-four million, fifty-three thousand, eighty-nine? Are you sure on this?


Ugh..i forgot a few numbers 12094053089234233246346356435635463456354

[Tempest Fennac]

Regarding Elves, I can thinking of High, Half, Grey, Wild, Wood, Drow, Moon, Sun, Star, Painted and Snow varieties off the top of my head. (That still seems excessive, though.)