5e Races Revealed [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Sartharina

2014-07-09, 02:18 PM

I suppose it was too much to hope for full Orc instead of this half-orc thing that's here, but that would prolly mess with the legacy players who don't like monstrous races too much. Or something. Other than that, I'm satisfied with this list.According to the way alignment works in D&D Next, full orcs by default don't have sufficient free will to be nonevil - they were created by Gruumsh to be his champions and servants. While the Good deities understand that creating intelligent, sapient, and self-directed life requires said life to have the freedom to make their own moral decisions in the world and can thus be any alignment, the Evil deities don't have any such compunctions about fairness or social justice or etc.

Pretty much, evil deities like Gruumsh, Lolth, Maglubiyet, Laduguer, (And demon princes like Yeenoghu) and the like are opposite in outlook from the Stickverse's Dark One, and the reason for the existence of these races is the opposite of the Stickverse's-according-to-SoD - Instead of Good gods populating the world with lots of evil creatures for their free-willed right-to-life creations to kill without remorse, the Good Gods populated the world with a bunch of free sentient creatures with equal value and respect for each other's lives, and the Evil Deities came along and screwed all that up with monsters that violate the fundamental value of life. Fortunately, the Good Gods seemed to have pulled a fast one over the Evil gods, by making Free Will strong enough that certain individuals of even the evil races can fight off the injustice of their creation, so I can still play my lawful good Gnoll Paladin that's always fighting off inherent urges to burn everything and kill everyone for the glory of her bestial creator (Yet always having a crisis of faith about WHY she's not doing what she so badly wants to do - I haven't figured out a solution for that one yet).

Half-Orcs, fortunately, have enough free will from their non-orc parent that they can fight off the evil natures within them with enough reliability to be productive members of their non-orc culture and become adventurers. Of course, you can always follow what Eberron did with Half-elves, and have your setting's half-orcs be a true-breeding independent race that's completely displaced the original "Orcs", giving the more modern flavor of orcs in the setting without raising the question of "Who were the parents?".

da_chicken

2014-07-09, 02:19 PM

I would have preferred Warforged to Dragonborn or Tiefling, but meh. It has the classic seven. That's all I really need.

Sartharina

2014-07-09, 02:23 PM

I was hoping for Catfolk of some kind. Maybe in a future expansion, but 4e never got any :(

da_chicken

2014-07-09, 02:30 PM

I was hoping for Catfolk of some kind. Maybe in a future expansion, but 4e never got any :(

I always thought of Shifters as Catfolk and Dogmen.

Yorrin

2014-07-09, 02:40 PM

There's 5 pages of elves, btw. Eladrin are basically high elves, so they don't count. :smallsmile:

Basic hints that Drow will be an elf subrace, which is prolly why the weapon proficiencies are a subrace thing, because Drow have a different set.

According to the way alignment works in D&D Next, full orcs by default don't have sufficient free will to be nonevil - they were created by Gruumsh to be his champions and servants.

Good thing I use a custom pantheon. Most Orcs worship dragons in my campaign world, and my dragon deity is CN, so I'll definitely tell my players that they're allowed to consider the stats for a half-orc as those for a full-blooded orc at their own choosing.

BRC

2014-07-09, 02:49 PM

According to the way alignment works in D&D Next, full orcs by default don't have sufficient free will to be nonevil - they were created by Gruumsh to be his champions and servants. While the Good deities understand that creating intelligent, sapient, and self-directed life requires said life to have the freedom to make their own moral decisions in the world and can thus be any alignment, the Evil deities don't have any such compunctions about fairness or social justice or etc.

I can't decide if that's better or worse than the standard problematic "Yeah, go ahead and kill the ugly things that look different from you" approach.

On one hand they're establishing that yes, these creatures are incapable of anything but evil, so they can fill their role as bags of loot and XP without adventurers getting a guilty conscience. They're basically meat-robots.

On the other hand, "Ugly things that don't look like you do are meat-robots here to do evil things".

Morty

2014-07-09, 02:53 PM

I'm still amused by how they slapped a big ol' "NOPE EVIL" stamp on orcs and such despite their stated goal being modularity. And that's on top of everything else that's awful about this approach.

BRC

2014-07-09, 03:11 PM

I'm still amused by how they slapped a big ol' "NOPE EVIL" stamp on orcs and such despite their stated goal being modularity.

From my brief experience with the starter set, it seems like they may be moving away from the 3.5 philosophy of having both PCs and Monsters be sitting on the same general ruleset, being generally symmetrical in terms of what they could do. There was an NPC that' rather than being built as a Human Fighter or whatever, was just a classless Human with a pile of stats and some abilities that had no source (As in, he was built more like a Monster than a legal PC).

Start treating everything like 3.5 treats monsters with RHD. The default isn't a "1st level Orc warrior", it's just an Orc. With Player Races existing as something totally separate.

Which is a philosophy I kind of like. It makes things less modular, but more unique. in 3.5, A bunch of Orc Warriors, a bunch of Goblin Warriors, and a bunch of Human Warriors are probably going to have basically the same combat options available. While the numbers change, the fights are basically the same.
If humanoid monsters get the same treatment as non-humanoid monsters (That is, they can just *Have* certain abilities that don't necessarily come from class levels or biology) it makes combat more unique. Goblins can hide after they take a shot, so that's a defining feature of fighting Goblins. It makes them different from, say, Orcs in a way that is a lot more tangible than their ability scores being different.

However, it makes things harder from a storytelling perspective. If the campaign is about fighting an army of hobgoblins, in 3.5 the DM can just give hobgoblins different class levels to mix things up, and can use an army of hobgoblins as a threat at any level. If you're now limited to pre-set stat blocks that say "Hobgoblin Warrior" "Hobgoblin Elite" "Hobgoblin Hunter" "Hobgoblin Priest" and "Hobgoblin Chieftain", then repeated battles against hobgoblins are going to get boring. In order to keep things fresh, the DM will need to cycle through different types of monsters, so you can't have an extended campaign about fighting an army of hobgoblins.

Morty

2014-07-09, 03:17 PM

BRC

2014-07-09, 03:19 PM

...it has nothing to do with anything I said. I don't mean the rules for enemies, which seem to have gone all the way back to AD&D in terms of providing interesting challenges. What I meant that is that, as revealed in a blog post from a while ago, they decided that 'monster races' being people rather than conveniently evil bags of XP is 'not fantasy' and thus not anything they're interested in doing. Even though catering to both views would be utterly trivial.

Oh yeah.
That's stupid.
They're definitely going to have "Monster" stats for humans (Cultists, Bandits, Soldiers, ect). They could easily have "Player" stats for Orcs, rather than writing off most seemingly-sentient races as Always-evil meat robots.

Plus, the whole "Always Evil Meat Robots" thing isn't even necessary. We were just fine with killing Orcs when they were free-willed-but-evil. We're going to have no trouble cutting down cultists and bandits and soldiers who are free willed but evil.
We've already handled the dissonance of being Good-aligned professional murderhobos. It's part of the Heroic Fantasy genre. We accept that our Heroes can rack up massive body counts and still be in the right, just as we accept magic and elves and melee weapons like swords being a good/iconic choice against Dragons.

Sartharina

2014-07-09, 03:32 PM

Morty

2014-07-09, 03:40 PM

I personally like how they address the issue. If other settings have monsters as proper people, they can run with that.

And why shouldn't a supposedly modular system let them do that?

BRC

2014-07-09, 03:49 PM

obryn

2014-07-09, 03:54 PM

Even in 1e, you rolled Reaction Checks for orcs.

PinkysBrain

2014-07-09, 03:54 PM

Has Drizzt ever been written as having to fight his evil impulses?

da_chicken

2014-07-09, 03:55 PM

And why shouldn't a supposedly modular system let them do that?

Is there something stopping you from doing that? Does the game break somehow because the default fluff is that Orcs are incorrigibly evil? Is fluff not modular or even less modular just because they don't say, "Your campaign world may have non-evil Orcs so check with your DM?"

This is a tempest in a teapot.

Morty

2014-07-09, 04:11 PM

Is there something stopping you from doing that? Does the game break somehow because the default fluff is that Orcs are incorrigibly evil? Is fluff not modular or even less modular just because they don't say, "Your campaign world may have non-evil Orcs so check with your DM?"

This is a tempest in a teapot.

So the answer is, once again, "just house-rule it". And if it's so utterly trivial, one wonders why the designers didn't do it in the first place.

da_chicken

2014-07-09, 04:21 PM

So the answer is, once again, "just house-rule it". And if it's so utterly trivial, one wonders why the designers didn't do it in the first place.

So the campaign setting is a house rule now?

And what the hell is the difference between changing something that didn't give you an explicit option and changing something that did? You're still changing something away from the default! If the designers are so inept and inflexible, why do you need their blessing to change anything?

Ilorin Lorati

2014-07-09, 05:11 PM

Has Drizzt ever been written as having to fight his evil impulses?

Drow aren't called out in the Basic rules as being a "built evil" race like Orcs - which is just as well, because in the Forgotten Realms that's not actually the case. Drow are raised evil in deference to the tenets of their goddess, but if I'm not mistaken they're not automatically so just by virture of their race. The ones that are iredeemably evil are the ones that were corrupted by interbreeding with the Balor Wendonai (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Wendonai) - which not all Drow are.

Lord Raziere

2014-07-09, 05:23 PM

hrm. whelp. I'm just gonna remove the "Half" part from the "Half-Orc" part....

I should really get around to homebrewing all the changes I want....its not as if its hard to do anymore...

archaeo

2014-07-09, 05:48 PM

hrm. whelp. I'm just gonna remove the "Half" part from the "Half-Orc" part....

I should really get around to homebrewing all the changes I want....its not as if its hard to do anymore...

I think it's worth pointing out that while there's an ongoing "every thing I have to homebrew is a thing the designers failed to do" meme going around, 5e seems specifically designed to make homebrewing as simple as possible. I don't think there's anything wrong with an edition that says a) there is no way to please every faction of a playerbase widely known for its fractiousness, so b) house rules and homebrew should require as little work as possible, so c) the mechanical implications of any given component of the rules should be easy to understand and simple to change. Ideally, d) the rules are robust enough to handle people doing this poorly, such that the system gracefully routes around imbalances, but I think that last bit may be too much to hope for in a system as crunchy as 5e or D&D generally.

Yes, WotC made decisive rules that tilt toward one or another side in the internecine debates in the fandom. No, none of these decisions are terribly hard to undo. Of course, I fail to see how refluffing a race to suit your campaign's moral universe was ever particularly difficult in any system.

Envyus

2014-07-09, 06:24 PM

iceman10058

2014-07-09, 11:16 PM

It should be noted it never said they were meat puppets with no free will. It just says they are pulled towards a particular alignment stronger then others.

Lets say there is a road with nine paths representing each alignment with a Human and an Orc about to choose one of these roads to go down. The Human just goes down what ever road he pleases. The Orc however feels a pull that makes him want to go down the Chaotic evil road. He does not have to but finds himself wanting to which is why most Orcs go down that road with most of the other Orcs still finding themselves wanting to go down a road close to it like the Chaotic Neutral road.

i agree, but that is how i have always treated anything in the mm in the past, everyone agrees that a red dragon is more likely to try to kill you than offer you tea and some free advice, so your first instinct is to kill it because they are usually evil. i think that is what they are trying to get across with orc, gnolls, and the like, usually evil but on rare ocasion, one or two manage to break free of this and become something more.

Sartharina

2014-07-10, 01:45 AM

i agree, but that is how i have always treated anything in the mm in the past, everyone agrees that a red dragon is more likely to try to kill you than offer you tea and some free advice, so your first instinct is to kill it because they are usually evil. i think that is what they are trying to get across with orc, gnolls, and the like, usually evil but on rare ocasion, one or two manage to break free of this and become something more.Not break free. They pull away - but they're always being called back.

In the current version of the Realms, evil races are evil. Other settings are different. They'll probably have free-willed takes on evil creatures as something explored in another splatbook or the DMG.

The complaint about all orcs being Always Chaotic Evil as a mark against a "Modular" system is like complaining that all Rogues are thieves, all Clerics are Healers, and all Wizards are blasters, and the only races are Fighter, Wizard, Thief, and Cleric.

A modular system doesn't have gaps in its rules - it has default, pre-installed modules.

Jeivar

2014-07-10, 04:50 AM

Unless you really want to dig into the whole "Celestial Heritage" thing, Aasimar aren't really all that interesting.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that, and I am one of the people disappointed with the exclusion. Since the Tieflings were included in the playtest I was looking forward to seeing what would be done with Aasimar.

Morty

2014-07-10, 07:23 AM

I can't help but wonder what the reaction would be if the situation was reversed, that is to say, if WotC had decided to enshrine "monstrous humanoids are people who tend to be at odds with other races" as the setting default, leaving "monstrous races are a conveniently evil source of targets" for the players to figure out, or wait for a splatbook.

Lord Raziere

2014-07-10, 07:33 AM

Interesting Aasimar huh?

ahem:

These people are distinct in that they have haloes always floating over them. All their life. They're always there, always glowing a little and never going away. Furthermore, not a single one of them has black hair, having albino hair instead, along with blonde, orange and sky-blue hair instead. Their eyes are similarly golden, green, sky blue, lacking any colors of the base earth such as dirt, grey or black. Their skin is fair to completely pearl white, and is always in some form of good shape.

They are mortal beings born half of the upper planes, possessing angelic heritage that inspires and drives them towards good, towards helping everyone around them. Many Aasimar have a warm-hearted sense of compassion, a sense of righteousness and justice and some form of dedication to the greater good. However their mortal half gives them flaws. They may be dedicated to good, but that doesn't mean they are wiser or know better than anyone around them for it. Their first instinct is to help, but that doesn't mean their judgement on how to help is always right. Many a young, foolish Aasimar have fallen to pride in their attempts at helping people, taking too much upon themselves and thus being crushed underneath the weight. Others fall too much into moral extremes that alienate people around them and lead them to commit horrific acts that demonstrate that the road to the Abyss is paved with good intentions. Finally there are Aasimar who fall into the trap of being unwilling to do anything for fear of violating one virtue or moral law to uphold another, and thus become a good man doing nothing.

Successful Aasimar are those who learn from their tragic failures. Aasimar culture is full of cautionary tales of those who came before them, needing tales to teach them the misuse of virtue and goodness can lead to destruction just as much as amoral selfishness. They are taught to think out their decisions and show some caution before they act for the greater good. By the time of adulthood most Aasimar have learned some degree of moderation, tempering their idealistic passion and dedication with reason and discipline. However the fundamental conflict in their mind remains: the constant nagging doubt about whether their own moral judgement is right, the fear about whether or not they fallen from grace or not- haunts them constantly.

Ability Score: +2 Wisdom

Halo:
Constantly illuminates 10 feet of area around them in dim light. This ability can't be turned off, but the halo can be hidden by clothing for purposes of stealth or disguise.

Angelic Ancestry:
You have advantage on saving throws against necrotic, and you have resistance against necrotic damage

Cantrip:
You can cast the Sacred Flame cantrip. Your Wisdom is your spellcasting ability for it.

Subraces:

Monastic Aasimar:
These Aasimar spend their time sequestered in monasteries and cloistered libraries, quietly learning wisdom and virtue in peace. They are taught various philosophies and ways of thinking upon virtue, ponder the nature of reality and learn from the various tragedies and cautionary tales told to them, not being given any paragon to aspire to but failures to avoid and encouragement to become their own paragon of morality and good in the world for others to look up to. When they come of age and are deemed ready, Aasimar raised in such a way are sent out into the world on their own with only basic supplies on a long journey as a rite of passage to put what they've been taught into practice as well as learn more about good up close, hopefully to someday return to share what they have done.

Ability Score: +2 Intelligence
Lest You Be Doomed To Repeat It:
You have proficiency in the History skill

Crusader Aasimar:
These Aasimar mingle with other races and are raised to actively champion good causes and fight for them. They are less about contemplation and more about actively making sure good is done in the world, sure they still learn discipline, but they are less cerebral about it, instead instilling it into the Aasimar through hard work, training and active focus upon the cause they work for. Thus they are more bellicose and extroverted, living life heartily with the people around them after a hard days work and willing to take on anything for what they believe is right. They exemplify the more brave, warm-hearted side of the Aasimar, eagerly making friends and fighting off enemies while smiling about it.

Ability Score: +2 Strength
Aasimar Weapon Training:
You are proficient in the longsword, longbow and lance

DONE.

Squirrel_Dude

2014-07-10, 07:45 AM

I would have preferred Warforged to Dragonborn or Tiefling, but meh. It has the classic seven. That's all I really need.I'm not a huge fan of Dragonborn, so I would have vastly preferred Warforged to them. Warforged are infinitely more interesting to me as a race.

akaddk

2014-07-10, 07:51 AM

I'm not a huge fan of Dragonborn, so I would have vastly preferred Warforged to them. Warforged are infinitely more interesting to me as a race.

Warforged are infinitely annoying as a race in a default D&D setting. They belong in Eberron, not Faerun.

Lord Raziere

2014-07-10, 08:02 AM

Warforged are infinitely annoying as a race in a default D&D setting. They belong in Eberron, not Faerun.

ancient myths of golems (well artificial life) dating back to the Greeks says hi......artificial life is NOT a new concept of the technological age....

Edit: that and Faerunian Warforged? priest carved one out of stone and prayed to Tempus, or some other war god to animate it smite his foes. Ever since then, priests both good and evil have been praying to war gods to make Warforged elite warriors out of exquisitely carved warrior statues taking years of devotion and skill to complete even one in worship of the war god, enough for it to be animated at all. though technically thats more like Warcarved. but whatever.

Person_Man

2014-07-10, 08:15 AM

Is there a link or article or twitter or whatever confirming this lineup of races?

Yorrin

2014-07-10, 08:18 AM

Is there a link or article or twitter or whatever confirming this lineup of races?

Tweet by @Wizards_DnD

Morty

2014-07-10, 08:19 AM

I'm not terribly fond of Warforged myself, but the option to play a sapient, humanoid construct is perfectly fine, and something many players want. The important thing is to leave a lot of room in terms of their description, since the process of their creation and their place in society is bound to be different in FR or another 'typical' D&D setting than it is in Eberron. An option you don't need to use is always better than not having the option at all.

obryn

2014-07-10, 08:36 AM

Warforged are infinitely annoying as a race in a default D&D setting. They belong in Eberron, not Faerun.
Eh, I even got one to work in Dark Sun. The result of one of Hamanu's experiments into creating a super-soldier, sheathed in obsidian.

Honestly, whenever I see Forgotten Realms "setting integrity" is not the first thing that comes to mind. :smallbiggrin:

HeadlessMermaid

2014-07-10, 08:49 AM

everyone agrees that a red dragon is more likely to try to kill you than offer you tea and some free advice, so your first instinct is to kill it because they are usually evil. i think that is what they are trying to get across with orc, gnolls, and the like, usually evil but on rare ocasion, one or two manage to break free of this and become something more.
Yes, but dragons are typically solitary monsters, whose way of life sets them apart from anything that resembles a humanoid society. Their motives are incomprehensible - I mean seriously, what does a dragon want a hoard FOR? He won't use it to buy stuff, he won't trade it for anything, he won't become a banker, he just sits on it. Literally. Why? No explanation needed, they're dragons, that's what they do.

But orcs and goblins grow up in tribes and villages, they are as social as humanoids can be expected to be, they spend their time raiding other people's villages, and one wonders what differentiates them from fantasy Vikings - other than the fact that Vikings are cool.

That said, I may not like the fluff in this particular instance, but it IS iconic fluff, and I'll start nagging only if it gets into the crunch. If NPC/monster creation rules make it difficult for me to present a tribe of mostly neutral gnolls (the default alignment for all humanoid races, as far as I'm concerned), I'll nag. If the DM has an incentive to present Evil foes all the time (say, the players have alignment-dependent abilities and they're eager to use them), I'll nag. But I don't expect to, because none of the above seems likely.

Alignment doesn't appear in a single rule of the Basic set. There's no alignment entry for classes, no alignment-specific spells or abilities, no mention of it in the Cleric section. Dwarfs don't get a bonus Vs orcs and goblinoids. I can't be sure for the Paladin yet, but it seems that neither Detect nor Smite will target [Evil] in general - they'll only get stuff Vs fiends and undead, and an attack bonus Vs anyone.

I believe that, in the 3rd edition, it wasn't the actual RAW ["Goblin alignment: Usually neutral evil"] that steered games, in practice, towards making entire races evil, and thus fodder. It was the prominence of alignment in the rules. It was pretty much expected from the party to fight Evil (TM) foes all the time, because that's how they would use all their nice spells, abilities, and items Vs Evil. (Though at the same time, orcs and goblins were entirely playable as PCs, creating a dissonant mess.) In earlier editions, alignment was the end-all and be-all of all encounters by design. Is it evil? Kill, no questions asked. Did you wear a Helm of Opposite Alignment? You're with the other team now. Indeed, alignment functioned largely as a shorthand for whose team you're on, a leftover from the wargames that spawned D&D in the first place, where some soldiers are painted red and some soldiers are painted green and they fight each other.

...I think we've come a long way since then.

It appears that in 5e orcs are created Evil, but no relevant rules make a difference. If I don't like it, I can change it without breaking a sweat. If I use a different cosmology/pantheon, there's no more reason for orcs to be created Evil. How do the orcs fare in that campaign world? As the DM designs it. And what rules must the DM tweak in order to achieve that? None at all. I am fairly satisfied with this approach.

Yorrin

2014-07-10, 08:57 AM

Good stuff

Well said, madam. As much as I appreciate default fluff as a launching point, I can and often do take the default monsters in new directions. And 5e looks like it will be great about allowing you do do that without mechanically screwing you over.

rlc

2014-07-10, 08:57 AM

Yorrin

2014-07-10, 08:59 AM

I think I read somewhere (probably here) that the forgotten realms are basically linked to earth through portals that don't really open much anymore, so I could at least see them having robots that somebody who found a portal brought over.

I'm pretty sure that (almost?) every official campaign setting is connected via obscure portals to each other and to earth. Probably via Sigil unless otherwise stated.

Person_Man

2014-07-10, 09:34 AM

1337 b4k4

2014-07-10, 09:44 AM

RE: "Always Chaotic Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AlwaysChaoticEvil)" debate

I think that having any race of intelligent creatures be Always or even Usually anything is dumb, because I don't believe in predestination, and don't want to play in a game world where intelligent creatures have their personalities and moral decision making process determined at birth. (Also, I don't think that anything beyond small nomadic tribes could be majority Chaotic or Evil and survive for long, but that's a much longer argument).

But in fairness to the game designers, D&D is literally the trope namer for the concept that certain races are always or usually a certain alignment. And if the players are strongly encouraged to be murderhobo, then it makes sense that the creatures that they rob and murder should be "deserving" of death.

As a pacifist in real life I find the whole orc holocaust thing appalling. But from a purely amoral gamist perspective, it makes sense to have clear signs for the players that say "hey it's ok to kill every orc in this dungeon cause unless they beg for mercy because they're EVIL and you're a Good hero and that's apparently what Good heroes do." The alternative is that players have to actually observe and/or interact with intelligent creatures to determine what they're doing and why they're doing it. That's the style of gameplay I prefer, but it's most certainly not the default play style for the majority of players.

Sadly, the continuation of XP for defeat rather than XP for GP will be a large driver for continuing to keep the murder hobo play style as default. While I get that there are issues with XP for GP, I really wish that had been one of the things from OD&D that they had brought forward. It's a much different game when "slaughter everything in sight" isn't the best way to get XP.

obryn

2014-07-10, 09:55 AM

Sadly, the continuation of XP for defeat rather than XP for GP will be a large driver for continuing to keep the murder hobo play style as default. While I get that there are issues with XP for GP, I really wish that had been one of the things from OD&D that they had brought forward. It's a much different game when "slaughter everything in sight" isn't the best way to get XP.
There've been promises about XP for GP in the DMG. (the acronyms rhyme you see)

rlc

2014-07-10, 10:00 AM

Like it was said earlier, the mindless meat puppet thing is fan speculation right now and I'm sure that not all half-orcs are the result of rape anyway.
Then, of course, there's the whole thing with people wanting everything to include a little "but ask your DM just to be sure" next to it, but at the same time, they get annoyed if there are too many of those.

Kerrin

2014-07-10, 10:03 AM

However, it makes things harder from a storytelling perspective. If the campaign is about fighting an army of hobgoblins, in 3.5 the DM can just give hobgoblins different class levels to mix things up, and can use an army of hobgoblins as a threat at any level. If you're now limited to pre-set stat blocks that say "Hobgoblin Warrior" "Hobgoblin Elite" "Hobgoblin Hunter" "Hobgoblin Priest" and "Hobgoblin Chieftain", then repeated battles against hobgoblins are going to get boring. In order to keep things fresh, the DM will need to cycle through different types of monsters, so you can't have an extended campaign about fighting an army of hobgoblins.
Never really had this come up as a problem in any RPG I've run. I just give the "monsters" whatever abilities I feel like them having, given the situation. Yes, sometimes characters get abilities without having to strictly follow the rules too. Makes the game world an interesting place.

Being able to free-form things like this and treat the rules as a framework or guidelines usually requires playing in a group who understands each other well. For our group it works.

captpike

2014-07-10, 10:38 AM

A modular system doesn't have gaps in its rules - it has default, pre-installed modules.

that is only true if they offer options, if all they say is "drow are evil, here are the mechanical effects that has" without any other options presented then it is not modular.

modular means they provide multiple options, ideal made such that you can make a third option easily as well. for example they could run down the math used to make the race features so you know how powerful they should be. or give a chart for average damage to help you with making new classes.

---
also I am disapointed with the very low number of races, given that each one takes at most one piece of paper, and is easy to make once you have the first one made. I see not reason to have less then 15 races

Devils_Advocate

2014-07-10, 10:41 AM

Ideally, the standard rules/setting should be Iconic. It should be the default people think of when they think of generic swords-and-sorcery fantasy, with other settings being deviations from that norm. The reason for this is so that players familiar with generic sword-and-sorcery fantasy can easily understand the settings without much explanation. It dosn't make unique, or necessarily interesting settings, but it makes accessible ones, and that should be the goal.
Yeah, it doesn't make much sense to have the default setting be... well, not the default setting.

Plus, the whole "Always Evil Meat Robots" thing isn't even necessary. We were just fine with killing Orcs when they were free-willed-but-evil. We're going to have no trouble cutting down cultists and bandits and soldiers who are free willed but evil.
We've already handled the dissonance of being Good-aligned professional murderhobos. It's part of the Heroic Fantasy genre. We accept that our Heroes can rack up massive body counts and still be in the right, just as we accept magic and elves and melee weapons like swords being a good/iconic choice against Dragons.
But some people aren't just fine with "heroes" casually slaughtering their ways through thousands of victims, and don't want their characters brutally murdering anyone unless they know that who they're murdering are extremely bad people. But other people aren't okay with hearing descriptions of atrocities that the protagonists witness in order to establish that their enemies are extremely bad people.

The solution is to contrive a situation in which genocidal racism is okay! Nay, commendable! Nay, NECESSARY!

"Wait, there are people who have problem with that, too?"

... Y'know, I recall reading that in early editions of D&D, it was standard practice for low-level characters to avoid fighting monsters. Because fighting monsters was a way to get killed, and getting killed is bad. And that there were even rules to support the idea that sometimes the losing side of a fight will run away, or even surrender, instead of pointlessly getting themselves killed!

My point being, maybe routine fights to the death aren't so essential to the Dungeons & Dragons experience that it's necessary to ham-fistedly mandate them? Like, maybe they could just... not happen most of the time? Perhaps that is the option that the largest number of players would be fine with?

It's a thought!

Sadly, the continuation of XP for defeat rather than XP for GP will be a large driver for continuing to keep the murder hobo play style as default. While I get that there are issues with XP for GP, I really wish that had been one of the things from OD&D that they had brought forward. It's a much different game when "slaughter everything in sight" isn't the best way to get XP.
Ah, yes, that would be the game-mechanical ham-fisted endorsement of gratuitous amounts of violence. On the face of it, tying character advancement to "overcoming challenges" makes a certain amount of sense. The PCs improve their skills by practicing them, and it makes for interesting situations. But this rewards fairly unrealistic behavior. You get more points for doing things the difficult way than by choosing the easy path, which can serve as a disincentive to be efficient.

How about rewarding accomplishing objectives instead? That encourages the players to try to have their characters do the things that they're supposed to be trying to do. Could be acquiring treasure. Could be slaying monsters. Could be completing some other sort of quest. But things that the characters want to accomplish, not whatever's hard or whatever's risky.

According to the way alignment works in D&D Next, full orcs by default don't have sufficient free will to be nonevil - they were created by Gruumsh to be his champions and servants. While the Good deities understand that creating intelligent, sapient, and self-directed life requires said life to have the freedom to make their own moral decisions in the world and can thus be any alignment, the Evil deities don't have any such compunctions about fairness or social justice or etc.
But there are strong moral/ethical tendencies shared by the vast majority of human beings. (Most people strongly prefer not to betray their own friends, to give one obvious example.) Pretending that that isn't the case encourages players to create psychologically unrealistic characters and is bound to create inconsistencies when combined with various conflicting realistic assumptions.

... I'm pretty sure I just put my finger on one of the primary problems with how D&D uses its alignment system.

Lets say there is a road with nine paths representing each alignment with a Human and an Orc about to choose one of these roads to go down. The Human just goes down what ever road he pleases. The Orc however feels a pull that makes him want to go down the Chaotic evil road. He does not have to but finds himself wanting to which is why most Orcs go down that road with most of the other Orcs still finding themselves wanting to go down a road close to it like the Chaotic Neutral road.
I can't seem to make any sense out of this. Could you just explain what this is supposed to be a metaphor for? Specifically, what does "going down a road" even represent? What does "a pull" represent, if not desire? (If it does represent desire, then you seem to be describing someone as wanting something because he wants it, which seems like a misuse of the word "because".)

And what does "what ever road he pleases" mean? My assumption would be that it means "the road that he wants to go down", but you state that an orc doesn't have to go down the road that he wants to down. Is it that the orc might want to go down a different road more, but a human only ever wants at all to go down one road?

Dimers

2014-07-10, 11:32 AM

I was hoping for Catfolk of some kind. Maybe in a future expansion, but 4e never got any :(

I find refluffed thri-kreen make pretty good catfolk. Good jumping, quick action, built-in claws, good at being low to the ground, Dexterity bonus ... ya know.

Ilorin Lorati

2014-07-10, 12:18 PM

that is only true if they offer options, if all they say is "drow are evil, here are the mechanical effects that has" without any other options presented then it is not modular.

modular means they provide multiple options, ideal made such that you can make a third option easily as well. for example they could run down the math used to make the race features so you know how powerful they should be. or give a chart for average damage to help you with making new classes.

They do provide options: the basic rules mention 3 elven subraces and have rules for two. Additionally, they never actually said "drow are evil, here are the mechanical effects that has." In fact, the basic rules explicitly state this is not the case.
They simply haven't released the module with mathematical layouts for player races yet.

also I am disapointed with the very low number of races, given that each one takes at most one piece of paper, and is easy to make once you have the first one made. I see not reason to have less then 15 races

It's not just "one piece of paper".

It's

An available niche,
iconic lore,
years of history,
player desire,
art (which can be expensive),
writing,
editing,
playtesting,
market research,
opportunity cost (what could have been made with the time and space),
and then, finally - one piece of paper.

Just with the races alone there's more race options here than there have been in any other PHB. With subraces they go far beyond anything that's ever been placed in a D&D book, period.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-07-10, 12:32 PM

You know what WotC should do? Open up a competition for races. Over the next couple years take submissions by people and put say... 50 - 100 into one splat book. Call it "The Player's Race Guide" or something corny like that.

Change an existing race or add a new one... They could do a lot with this.

Sartharina

2014-07-10, 12:40 PM

ancient myths of golems (well artificial life) dating back to the Greeks says hi......artificial life is NOT a new concept of the technological age....

Edit: that and Faerunian Warforged? priest carved one out of stone and prayed to Tempus, or some other war god to animate it smite his foes. Ever since then, priests both good and evil have been praying to war gods to make Warforged elite warriors out of exquisitely carved warrior statues taking years of devotion and skill to complete even one in worship of the war god, enough for it to be animated at all. though technically thats more like Warcarved. but whatever.

Warforged are not Golems.

Dragonborn have greater influence in D&D, from the draconic things from Dragonlance, to the Dragonborn of Bahamut, to 4e's Dragonborn as an Ancient Civilization.

pwykersotz

2014-07-10, 12:44 PM

RE: "Always Chaotic Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AlwaysChaoticEvil)" debate

I think that having any race of intelligent creatures be Always or even Usually anything is dumb, because I don't believe in predestination, and don't want to play in a game world where intelligent creatures have their personalities and moral decision making process determined at birth. (Also, I don't think that anything beyond small nomadic tribes could be majority Chaotic or Evil and survive for long, but that's a much longer argument).

But in fairness to the game designers, D&D is literally the trope namer for the concept that certain races are always or usually a certain alignment. And if the players are strongly encouraged to be murderhobo, then it makes sense that the creatures that they rob and murder should be "deserving" of death.

As a pacifist in real life I find the whole orc holocaust thing appalling. But from a purely amoral gamist perspective, it makes sense to have clear signs for the players that say "hey it's ok to kill every orc in this dungeon cause unless they beg for mercy because they're EVIL and you're a Good hero and that's apparently what Good heroes do." The alternative is that players have to actually observe and/or interact with intelligent creatures to determine what they're doing and why they're doing it. That's the style of gameplay I prefer, but it's most certainly not the default play style for the majority of players.

I try to focus on the other side. Throwing myself into different roles with beliefs radically different from my own has vastly improved my storytelling and GM'ing capabilities. Dealing with races that are 'always evil' or 'usually chaotic' or similar helps me expand my perspective. After all, that's what makes the rare few who are redeemed that much more special.

Really, when I play a good character in D&D, I treat everyone as having free will, even if they don't. I'll try to convert a freaking balor. I usually don't succeed, but I still try, and my DM's will make sure I at least fail forward, understanding a bit more about how they run their world after I'm done trying.

Besides, even within the alignment spectrum, there's room for choice. Unless they are truly played two dimensionally. It's interesting to think what choices get made when your instincts and personality presuppose a certain path.

I definitely agree that "KILL THE EVIL FOR XP!" is not as fun.

Sartharina

2014-07-10, 01:12 PM

RE: "Always Chaotic Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AlwaysChaoticEvil)" debate

I think that having any race of intelligent creatures be Always or even Usually anything is dumb, because I don't believe in predestination, and don't want to play in a game world where intelligent creatures have their personalities and moral decision making process determined at birth. (Also, I don't think that anything beyond small nomadic tribes could be majority Chaotic or Evil and survive for long, but that's a much longer argument).

But in fairness to the game designers, D&D is literally the trope namer for the concept that certain races are always or usually a certain alignment. And if the players are strongly encouraged to be murderhobo, then it makes sense that the creatures that they rob and murder should be "deserving" of death.

As a pacifist in real life I find the whole orc holocaust thing appalling. But from a purely amoral gamist perspective, it makes sense to have clear signs for the players that say "hey it's ok to kill every orc in this dungeon cause unless they beg for mercy because they're EVIL and you're a Good hero and that's apparently what Good heroes do." The alternative is that players have to actually observe and/or interact with intelligent creatures to determine what they're doing and why they're doing it. That's the style of gameplay I prefer, but it's most certainly not the default play style for the majority of players.

Corellon and Moradin want YOU to join the fight against Gruumsh and the other Evil gods for the souls of the Goblins, Orcs, Gnolls, etc. to restore the freedom of choice and liberty that are their birthrights, instead of being slaves to their own god-blackened hearts and minds. Evil is a system, and that system is our enemy. But when you look at it, what do you see? Orcs, Goblins, Kobolds, Gnolls - the people we're trying to save. But until that happens, these people are part of that system, and that makes them our enemy. Most of them are unwilling to be free. And most of them are so inured, and so dependent on their Gods, that they will fight to protect them.

HeadlessMermaid

2014-07-10, 02:11 PM

ancient myths of golems (well artificial life) dating back to the Greeks says hi......artificial life is NOT a new concept of the technological age....
Having constructs as a player race means there's a bunch of them running around, and this implies a widespread production, if not "industrial" scale. IMO, this is quite setting-specific, so I understand why they're left out of the PHB. Of course, I hope and fully expect warforged to be playable down the road, as more material gets published.

As for ancient myths, there are a handful of constructs in Greek mythology (all of them unique, and IMO unplayable in a themed setting), and golems in Jewish folklore (by definition mindless, and definitely unplayable unless you modify the myth beyond recognition). So while artificial life in general is a very old concept, it doesn't necessarily mesh well with an artificial player race - especially now, that magic items are optional. You'd need special flavour to justify their existence. And I'm guessing we'll get that later.

My point being, maybe routine fights to the death aren't so essential to the Dungeons & Dragons experience that it's necessary to ham-fistedly mandate them? Like, maybe they could just... not happen most of the time? Perhaps that is the option that the largest number of players would be fine with?

It's a thought!
Combat, exploration, social encounters: these are the design goals of 5e, not just combat. At least on paper. If things go well, I expect it will be entirely up to the DM and players whether the default mode will be "strange sentient being! let's talk to it!" or "let's kill it and take its stuff!".

The thing that killed social encounters in 3.5 was the skill system, especially diplomacy. And when I say "killed", I mean "made it silly by RAW, so people who wanted less silliness proceeded to tweak stuff, and had great social games anyway." The thing that killed exploration in 3.5 was a bunch of spells which would make exploration irrelevant. And when I say "killed", I mean "made it a bit redundant at mid to high levels, so people who wanted to explore proceeded to tweak/ban stuff (or run lower level adventures) and had great exploration games anyway".

I get the impression that neither of the above will be such a serious problem in 5e. And basically, if the frightfully complicated 3.5 could be modified by sufficiently determined DMs and players into any shape they wished, 5e will be a piece of cake.

You can't take combat out of D&D, it's too fundamental. But you can keep it as a last resort, if that's what rocks your boat. One big difference from 2E to 3E was that, instead of just deciding what your character does, you would look at your character sheet and wonder "do I have an ability for that? a feat, a boosted skill, a spell, an item?". Because if you didn't have a relevant something, you didn't expect it to work at all. If we're truly done with this, if we're back at a stage where most thinking happens in game and not during character creation, nothing prevents you from making combat a rare occasion in your games.

(...Hopefully. There's a lot of material yet to be published, who knows if it doesn't complicate things.)

captpike

2014-07-10, 02:38 PM

obryn

2014-07-10, 02:49 PM

Having constructs as a player race means there's a bunch of them running around, and this implies a widespread production, if not "industrial" scale.
Why would this be? The PCs are exceptional, by virtue of being adventurers (and by virtue of being the PCs) so I'd say there's no "mass produced" implication. :smallsmile: What I'm saying is, just because a PC is a warforged doesn't mean they'll run into NPC warforged.

I mean, in my Dark Sun adventure, the "Warforged" was literally one-of-a-kind, an abandoned prototype.

Sartharina

2014-07-10, 02:59 PM

An available niche,
hardly hard to find, and keep in mind that races are more needed to make sure every setting is easy to use then to make sure you flesh out one.

even if the default one does not have warforged, having them in the PHB makes it easier to run eberon, custom settings, and gives more options for altering the default if you want. or even refluffing the warforged to be something different

iconic lore,
years of history,
these already exist from previous editions, and also you don't need too much of them because they will only be used by a subset of those who use the PHB because they change with every setting. unlike the race powers for example

player desire,
market research
they already have the data for the last several editions, and I doubt the desire for tieflings has changed one way or another by a huge amount in the last 5-10 years.

also very easy to make a poll for, one of the few things they could just use raw poll data for

art (which can be expensive)
true, but being able to sell a PHB that has not only the standard races but alot of cool new ones would be more then worth it.

writing,
editing,
of one page, not exactly huge.

playtesting,
of a race? unless it has questionable powers I think you really need much testing once you get enough made and testing to know the math.

opportunity cost (what could have been made with the time and space)
given we are talking about a day of work for one person I doubt you could get much more for it. races need less testing (once you have enough to know the math of course) then most anything else. most feats would need more time and effort then races
Races made with only a day of thought behind them show, and are promptly ignored or laughed off the face of the book.

Previous Editions don't count - we're selling to New Players even moreso than old ones. And, by focusing on just a few races and really nailing their lore, feel, and abilities, it dramatically improves the quality and playability. There's also a balancing act in creating a race, to make it actually playable. Sure I'm disappointed that I can't play my usual catperson at most tables, but the fluff of the various races has got me interested in wanting to try all sorts of Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, and even a few humans of all classes, backgrounds, and personalities. I can hardly wait to see what they have for the rest of the

I'm guessing 99.9% of D&D players use the same metasetting. They tweak a few things, but the races are designed to be modular and fit into the D&D metasetting, regardless of whether the world's most prominent city is Neverwinter, Sharn, Greyhawk, Cliffport, or Imperial Town.

Also - the Player's Handbook creates player entitlement. If it's in the PHB, most players are entitled to use it for their characters, so the races need to have enough appeal to sell the Metasetting that sells D&D. If you have too many races, the game encourages "Freak Show" parties.

Morty

2014-07-10, 03:17 PM

I think "the gods made it that way" is the single most boring explanation for why a part of a fantasy world works the way it does.

Sartharina

2014-07-10, 03:18 PM

I think "the gods made it that way" is the single most boring explanation for why a part of a fantasy world works the way it does.Except it's the only true one ("The Gods", of course, are proxies for the Game Developers)

HeadlessMermaid

2014-07-10, 03:19 PM

Why would this be? The PCs are exceptional, by virtue of being adventurers (and by virtue of being the PCs) so I'd say there's no "mass produced" implication. :smallsmile: What I'm saying is, just because a PC is a warforged doesn't mean they'll run into NPC warforged.

I mean, in my Dark Sun adventure, the "Warforged" was literally one-of-a-kind, an abandoned prototype.
As, an exception, sure. :smallsmile: [For example, I said that constructs are basically incompatible as PCs with Greek mythology - and yet I've let a player play a warforged that Prometheus built and accidentally breathed life/sentience into. :smalltongue:] But when you write the PHB races, you don't include every possible creature that can be played, you pick the most prominent ones, you give them lots of flavour as well as stats, and use them to populate the generic setting. Exceptions are entirely acceptable, but ultimately up to the party/DM.

Ilorin Lorati

2014-07-10, 03:22 PM

Sure I'm disappointed that I can't play my usual catperson at most tables,

At the very least, I know that Forgotten Realms has canon cat-people, so I can't imagine you'll never get the option. At least if WotC goes back to their 3.x splat philosophy as opposed to "EVERY SETTING GETS ONE DM BOOK AND ONE PLAYER BOOK. PERIOD. EXCEPT NEVERWINTER, WHICH GETS FIFTY MILLION."

Morty

2014-07-10, 03:31 PM

Except it's the only true one ("The Gods", of course, are proxies for the Game Developers)

Everything being ultimately the product of a writer's imagination =/= in-universe gods creating everything. Plenty of fantasy settings don't even have confirmed active gods.

Sartharina

2014-07-10, 03:34 PM

At the very least, I know that Forgotten Realms has canon cat-people, so I can't imagine you'll never get the option. At least if WotC goes back to their 3.x splat philosophy as opposed to "EVERY SETTING GETS ONE DM BOOK AND ONE PLAYER BOOK. PERIOD. EXCEPT NEVERWINTER, WHICH GETS FIFTY MILLION."... I had almost completely forgotten about the Tabaxi (Which haven't been since since AD&D) or and Weemics...

russdm

2014-07-10, 05:41 PM

Corellon and Moradin want YOU to join the fight against Gruumsh and the other Evil gods for the souls of the Goblins, Orcs, Gnolls, etc. to restore the freedom of choice and liberty that are their birthrights, instead of being slaves to their own god-blackened hearts and minds. Evil is a system, and that system is our enemy. But when you look at it, what do you see? Orcs, Goblins, Kobolds, Gnolls - the people we're trying to save. But until that happens, these people are part of that system, and that makes them our enemy. Most of them are unwilling to be free. And most of them are so inured, and so dependent on their Gods, that they will fight to protect them.

So 5th Edition is now the Matrix?

We are choosing to believe that both Corellon and Moradin are telling us the truth about how the system works, rather than them lying, since they would lie anyway.

Being Good doesn't mean being right or truthful in D&D terms anymore, and should never be considered as such ever.

I am hoping the new gnome is not the same old gnome of being a Dwarf/elf/Halfling. Most likely that it will be.

I would like to see different cultures of humans available as well since we get different kinds of elves/Dwarves.

HunterOfJello

2014-07-10, 07:25 PM

Why were Dragonborn and Tieflings ever added into the starting races?

Is it just for furrys and people who want to pretend to be grimdark or what?

Then again, I'll just be happy if Elves aren't relegated into the position of 'Lesser-Eladrin' again. Lesser-leShay? Sure. Lesser-Eladrin? No.

Squirrel_Dude

2014-07-10, 07:54 PM

Why were Dragonborn and Tieflings ever added into the starting races?

Is it just for furrys and people who want to pretend to be grimdark or what?I would suspect, having never actually read their profiels in any way, that characters who have a heritage tied back to inherently evil creatures (chromatic dragons, demons/devils) can be very interesting and those races gave players clear opportunities to create those types of characters.

Rater202

2014-07-10, 08:24 PM

No clue on tieflings, but officially Dragonborn were added as a core race in third edition-and having their origin changed-because a lot of players liked the idea of playing a half dragon, but were put off by the level adjustment.

Incidentally, Dragonborn are not and never were derived from chromatic dragons, at least not exclusively/

3.5, as depicted in races of the dragon, the Dragonborn were created when a mortal pledged themselves against evil dragons and received a blessing from Bahamut, and thus were derived from Metallic Dragons

4, were their own race seperate from true dragons

5, result from on authorized eggs from either type of true dragon, but can breed true to produce offspring identicle to 4.

Lord Raziere

2014-07-10, 08:54 PM

On the Tiefling and Dragonborn thing:
well think of rogues as a class.

does that scream "comes from a good place in life"? probably not, because you probably have a criminal background, even if your a lawful good rogue from a noble family or serving as a spy, you had to have picked up the skills you do somehow, whether from political intrigue, working for a thieves guild or being an inquisitorial kind of person, investigating heresy and evil gods sometimes within your own church, you probably do not have a background that is clean or entirely free of evil people or dark environments. yet the rogue is still a widely used archetype and a vital part of the party.

fluffwise though, somehow the rogue must fit in with honorable warriors, wise wizards, holy crusaders of virtue and spiritual shamans and so on. about half of these people would kill or jail him under different circumstances, so why is he here? well its about a hero of light rising from the shadow. the rogue is good rising from the muck and depths of evil around him. he is the light in the darkness. when everyone else is being Superman, or the Flash or whatever else, he is there being Batman, not in the "prepared for everything" sense but in the "dark knight" sense. he is the person who has seen firsthand what evil can do and how to combat it from his up close experience with it. this gives him an edge that others do not have- knowing how the enemy thinks.

where am I going with this? Tieflings and Dragonborn (well at least Tieflings) are like that on a racial level. they're the dark knights racial wise. to me, a tiefling isn't an emo-grimdark-boohoohoo sobfest, but someone who sees evil, knows their own heritage and decide: SCREW THIS. that when they decided between being evil like the rest of their race and being good, they made the right decision, and became a hero. that they stared into the face of evil, perhaps even grew up surrounded by it, but decided: No, I'll stand up for whats right anyway. that is the making of a hero right there. and for some reason its just inspiring to me because it proves that even from the darkest places, there is a hope for something better, a hope for change- even if the person know they won't be trusted because of their heritage, they still try, they still do whats right. for playing a Tiefling is kind of like wearing the ring of invisibility as postulated by Plato- no one will trust you or probably believe you if you do something good, will you do it anyways? and thus the truly moral hero does it, knowing he won't even receive recognition for it. thats the potential I see. not a grimdark "I suffer because of my heritage waaaaah" but the hope that there its possible for a person to rise from evil, set out to do good and do it without anyone ever knowing about it, doing it only because its right- that in our darkest moments when no one is around, we can choose to do whats right.

again, a lot like playing a rogue. your work is in the dark, in stealth in secrecy, never to be shown the true heroism of your actions- do you still do good anyways? its the same reason I would play a Drow.

thing is, Batman himself can be said to be wearing this ring of invisibility- he is stealthy, in a mask and keeping himself distant from all society and almost everyone. he has plans in case any of the heroes around him go evil, he has various little toys and such for every single situation. if he was less moral than he was, could we really trust him with all the information and technology he has, knowing how competent he is, and how devoted he can get to his cause? an evil Batman is an incredibly dangerous Batman. yet he still continues to be heroic.

Werephilosopher

2014-07-10, 09:17 PM

Warforged are not Golems.

Not golems as D&D defines them, but pretty much golems as real-world myths and legends define them.

I try to focus on the other side. Throwing myself into different roles with beliefs radically different from my own has vastly improved my storytelling and GM'ing capabilities. Dealing with races that are 'always evil' or 'usually chaotic' or similar helps me expand my perspective. After all, that's what makes the rare few who are redeemed that much more special.

It's just that Always X races only make sense if they embody their alignment, as demons do Chaotic Evil. If a mortal race is Always X it should be because of culture, not nature- and even then there should be a good reason why that culture encompasses the entire race. Being a Good character of a race that is Always Chaotic Evil because "that's just how they are" may change your perspective, but such a change seems heavy-handed- especially since it doesn't explain why your character is different, except that, again, "they just are." Contrast with drow, who are Always Evil because of their culture, making an individual drow's conversion to Good a lot more reasonable-sounding.

Except it's the only true one ("The Gods", of course, are proxies for the Game Developers)

But game developers design worlds that others will enjoy being in, whereas true Gods build worlds for the shiggles. :smalltongue:

Then again, I'll just be happy if Elves aren't relegated into the position of 'Lesser-Eladrin' again. Lesser-leShay? Sure. Lesser-Eladrin? No.

I may forgive 4e for what they did to the Eladrin, but I will never forget. :smallmad:

Sartharina

2014-07-10, 09:42 PM

Not golems as D&D defines them, but pretty much golems as real-world myths and legends define them.Golems of real-world myths and legends are usually mindless, near-mindless, or actively malevolent, with the exception of Flesh Golems, which are free-willed, but hated by everyone else for what they are.

It's just that Always X races only make sense if they embody their alignment, as demons do Chaotic Evil. If a mortal race is Always X it should be because of culture, not nature- and even then there should be a good reason why that culture encompasses the entire race. Being a Good character of a race that is Always Chaotic Evil because "that's just how they are" may change your perspective, but such a change seems heavy-handed- especially since it doesn't explain why your character is different, except that, again, "they just are." Contrast with drow, who are Always Evil because of their culture, making an individual drow's conversion to Good a lot more reasonable-sounding.It's nature, not culture, because their nature is born from evil. The "Why is yours different?" is usually amounts to some form of "Because he was mindraped(redeemed/abused(Socialized) as a child, and it stuck."

Orcs and Goblins are made Evil by Evil for Evil. If you have a problem with it, take it up with their creators. As for "Genocide is wrong" - Smallpox agrees!

But game developers design worlds that others will enjoy being in, whereas true Gods build worlds for the shiggles. :smalltongue:No, game designers build worlds for shiggles, then decide it's interesting enough to let others play around with as well. :smalltongue:

obryn

2014-07-10, 09:52 PM

Why were Dragonborn and Tieflings ever added into the starting races?

Is it just for furrys and people who want to pretend to be grimdark or what
No, it's because dragon people and devil people are pretty cool.

Drow are the angst-ridden "oh my heritage!" grimdark race. Have been since 1e, really!

I don't think any of us can rest until svirfneblin are playable in 5e, though.

captpike

2014-07-10, 10:17 PM

Races made with only a day of thought behind them show, and are promptly ignored or laughed off the face of the book.

Previous Editions don't count - we're selling to New Players even moreso than old ones. And, by focusing on just a few races and really nailing their lore, feel, and abilities, it dramatically improves the quality and playability. There's also a balancing act in creating a race, to make it actually playable. Sure I'm disappointed that I can't play my usual catperson at most tables, but the fluff of the various races has got me interested in wanting to try all sorts of Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, and even a few humans of all classes, backgrounds, and personalities. I can hardly wait to see what they have for the rest of the

I'm guessing 99.9% of D&D players use the same metasetting. They tweak a few things, but the races are designed to be modular and fit into the D&D metasetting, regardless of whether the world's most prominent city is Neverwinter, Sharn, Greyhawk, Cliffport, or Imperial Town.

Also - the Player's Handbook creates player entitlement. If it's in the PHB, most players are entitled to use it for their characters, so the races need to have enough appeal to sell the Metasetting that sells D&D. If you have too many races, the game encourages "Freak Show" parties.

I would venture to say that you would be hard pressed to find a setting that 50% of people play, let alone 99%. again the game needs to work with all the settings, not just the default.

I am looking at the races and I don't see anything that requires alot of testing, alot of small bonuses, alot of fluff stuff that is easy to decide (size, vision). they may have a small power or two but its not like they are large enough to be an issue.

as far as lore goes ideally it would give a few paragraphs each for several options, with a "ask the DM" part at the end. no reason to try and lie one set of lore to a certain race.

also for anyone who is playing a setting that is not the default, often all the fluff would be worthless. no point in spending alot of time on a part that only a quarter of everyone who buys the book will use, and even they can and should change to suit them.
the lore in the books is a starting point, and a good thing to use when you can't make your own. its not rules text, its not something the rest of the game assumes is there.

it is better to offer too many options and have the DM tell plays they only allow races A-F, maybe H and G with a good backstory then to have only a few options.
also why is the bolded bad? why is it an inherently bad ideal to offer odd options as races? are the PCs not special and unique anyway?

russdm

2014-07-10, 10:30 PM

also why is the bolded bad? why is it an inherently bad ideal to offer odd options as races? are the PCs not special and unique anyway?

Because most odd races cause people to take hard looks at the alignment system? Some people play Kender to annoy their parties more than make an interesting character and Kender (Which is used poorly considering how they are supposed to be) is one of the poster children for players who enjoy griefing their parties.

Each race needs a place in the world for it to be used as a player race that makes sense.

Some players pick some races mainly so they can cause trouble like being an elf in an all human party despite the DM saying just humans. Some people simply don't want to get with the program.

Lord Raziere

2014-07-10, 10:43 PM

If you have too many races, the game encourages "Freak Show" parties.

I was never under the impression that was a bad thing. I'm curious, would you call an American, someone from Africa, a Chinese man, a Mexican and a guy from India all working together as a "freak show" team? :smallamused:

captpike

2014-07-10, 10:47 PM

Because most odd races cause people to take hard looks at the alignment system? Some people play Kender to annoy their parties more than make an interesting character and Kender (Which is used poorly considering how they are supposed to be) is one of the poster children for players who enjoy griefing their parties.

Each race needs a place in the world for it to be used as a player race that makes sense.

Some players pick some races mainly so they can cause trouble like being an elf in an all human party despite the DM saying just humans. Some people simply don't want to get with the program.

the bolded is simply not true. nothing wrong with having a PC be a race that is very rare, or a one of a kind aboration.

yes some people like to play kender to mess things up, so what? that is a reason not to include kender, not a reason to not include only the most old and basic races.

and as you said such people will find ways to mess things up, you can't and should not try to stop them by only providing the most basic of races.

also I know I am bored of the tolken races.

FidgetySquirrel

2014-07-10, 10:59 PM

I saw the 'orcs are evil cuz Grummsh made them that way' thing before in homebrew long before 5e and I hated it. If I end up switching to 5e, I'll just be ignoring that little bit of fluff.

russdm

2014-07-10, 11:15 PM

the bolded is simply not true. nothing wrong with having a PC be a race that is very rare, or a one of a kind aberration.

But those reasons make sense to have the race though. What I am talking about is having an elf or dwarf or something where that race actually doesn't exist at all. It would be like playing a gnome in Dark Sun, when there are no gnomes in Dark Sun so it makes no sense to have them anywhere.

Or something like Tentacle monsters.

I would prefer to see more interesting races, but that does mean having to make more interesting races and I don't really WotC being all that skilled in doing this. They after all had the Gnome(Dwarf/elf/Halfling) of 3rd edition.

And don't forget the 20+ races of elves in 3rd/3.5 that were almost completely copies of each other. Despite the fact there is only human in the game and no human subraces of any kind.

Lord Raziere

2014-07-10, 11:25 PM

But those reasons make sense to have the race though. What I am talking about is having an elf or dwarf or something where that race actually doesn't exist at all. It would be like playing a gnome in Dark Sun, when there are no gnomes in Dark Sun so it makes no sense to have them anywhere.

Interesting and makes for a story of someone who finds himself in a desolate, strange world where he is unique and the only one of his kind and how he has to deal with everyone not knowing what a gnome is, while he is trying to figure out the anomaly that is his existence? it could be a great set up to a mystery. a plot hook even!

russdm

2014-07-11, 12:10 AM

Interesting and makes for a story of someone who finds himself in a desolate, strange world where he is unique and the only one of his kind and how he has to deal with everyone not knowing what a gnome is, while he is trying to figure out the anomaly that is his existence? it could be a great set up to a mystery. a plot hook even!

What about the fact that one of the Sorcerer-kings is known for genociding the gnomes? Or the fact that this gnome's arrival will put up a challenge for said sorcerer-king to be sure they didn't miss any?

Besides, assuming a sorcerer-king or servant doesn't whack him, what does his story give that character of another race would? What makes being a gnome here actually that important?

Everyone would try him as a dwarf and he would most likely end up acting like a dwarf, because everyone would treat him that. Plus, who cares in Dark Sun if he is a gnome or dwarf besides a Sorcerer-king making sure that they killed all the gnomes?

Lord Raziere

2014-07-11, 12:26 AM

What about the fact that one of the Sorcerer-kings is known for genociding the gnomes? Or the fact that this gnome's arrival will put up a challenge for said sorcerer-king to be sure they didn't miss any?

Besides, assuming a sorcerer-king or servant doesn't whack him, what does his story give that character of another race would? What makes being a gnome here actually that important?

Everyone would try him as a dwarf and he would most likely end up acting like a dwarf, because everyone would treat him that. Plus, who cares in Dark Sun if he is a gnome or dwarf besides a Sorcerer-king making sure that they killed all the gnomes?

sounds like good plot hooks to me! racism! prejudice! attempted finished genocide! perfect things for a PC to face! perfect way to get them involved in the story and to care about what happens on Athas!

importance? its important in its rarity! the gnome is important BECAUSE there are no gnomes anymore! imagine if suddenly a fire genasi were to be found in our world, that is incredibly important! scientists will try to find out how a being composed of flame EXISTS like this, religions might interpret it as an act of god, people will come up with theories upon theories on how he even got here, it would open up a whole slew of opportunities and events that would change the world!

a gnome? on Athas? people would not believe their eyes! they would think a race that died out is back again! that perhaps maybe, Athas can recover, that it can be resurrected once again! its important because of how people react to it! and everyone reacts strongly to unique or rare things- just look at diamonds yes? they're pretty much nothing but jewelry designed to loo pretty yet people fight so much over them and steal them so much. the importance of something is what people ascribe to that something. you might not ascribe much importance to the gnome- but I do!

russdm

2014-07-11, 12:32 AM

sounds like good plot hooks to me! racism! prejudice! attempted finished genocide! perfect things for a PC to face! perfect way to get them involved in the story and to care about what happens on Athas!

importance? its important in its rarity! the gnome is important BECAUSE there are no gnomes anymore! imagine if suddenly a fire genasi were to be found in our world, that is incredibly important! scientists will try to find out how a being composed of flame EXISTS like this, religions might interpret it as an act of god, people will come up with theories upon theories on how he even got here, it would open up a whole slew of opportunities and events that would change the world!

a gnome? on Athas? people would not believe their eyes! they would think a race that died out is back again! that perhaps maybe, Athas can recover, that it can be resurrected once again! its important because of how people react to it! and everyone reacts strongly to unique or rare things- just look at diamonds yes? they're pretty much nothing but jewelry designed to loo pretty yet people fight so much over them and steal them so much. the importance of something is what people ascribe to that something. you might not ascribe much importance to the gnome- but I do!

That just sounds like putting up a bright neon flashing sign with the words, "I am here", rather than being discreet, considering what happened other gnomes here.

If this was me, I would take steps to attract as little attention as possible considering what happened to other members of my race. When I was strong enough to perhaps kill said sorcerer-king, then I would proudly proclaim myself.

As the saying says, "Never go trying to eat any energy source bigger than your head, and don't go turning yourself into a target for fame."

pwykersotz

2014-07-11, 12:46 AM

It's just that Always X races only make sense if they embody their alignment, as demons do Chaotic Evil. If a mortal race is Always X it should be because of culture, not nature- and even then there should be a good reason why that culture encompasses the entire race. Being a Good character of a race that is Always Chaotic Evil because "that's just how they are" may change your perspective, but such a change seems heavy-handed- especially since it doesn't explain why your character is different, except that, again, "they just are." Contrast with drow, who are Always Evil because of their culture, making an individual drow's conversion to Good a lot more reasonable-sounding.

I think your simplifying it more than I do. I agree, it sounds fairly ridiculous that way.

I don't see why mortal races can't have natures that don't play nice. It takes all kinds to make a world as vast as the one D&D presents
"That's just how they are" is a terrible reason, I agree. Much more interesting to have evil gods not give their races free will, or to instill a deep hunger and satisfaction for consuming a sentient creature because of the nutrients and hormone levels found in the body that are most delicious when the victim dies in a blind panic
Having a character that defies the norm should always have a believable reason, yes

None of what I said above invalidates your claims about culture being an excellent way to illustrate races of other perspectives. This is just in addition to it.

Sartharina

2014-07-11, 12:55 AM

Lord Raziere

2014-07-11, 01:21 AM

This is a heck of a lot of work to dump on a new DM, and is something best for more advanced players who've supplemented their Starter Set and Core 3 books with other, more specialized splats providing more options.

Not something you want to dump on everyone buying the system core.

I don't see any problem with it, and I'm still DMing my first campaign.

@ russdm: oh but that is just set up for when its revealed your a gnome at the worst dramatic time so that CHAOS and AWESOME can ensue as the plans of mice and men are thrown up in the air and everyone must scramble to re-shuffle their priorities and improvise on the fly what will happen!

Inevitability

2014-07-11, 03:55 AM

So 5th Edition is now the Matrix?

Can I please sig this?

EccentricCircle

2014-07-11, 04:17 AM

I'm still amused by how they slapped a big ol' "NOPE EVIL" stamp on orcs and such despite their stated goal being modularity. And that's on top of everything else that's awful about this approach.

Yeah I wish that the section on always chaotic evil races in the Basic Pdf had had some quick shout out to Eberron saying "although orcs are always chaotic evil on many D&D worlds there are others where they do have free will, on the World of Eberron the orcs are guardians of nature and champions of the natural order, while hobgoblins once ruled a vast empire than rivaled any of the modern nations in power."
Given how many references to Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance they have you'd think the occasional Eberron mention when it's relevant would be easy enough.

Beleriphon

2014-07-11, 05:37 AM

Given how many references to Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance they have you'd think the occasional Eberron mention when it's relevant would be easy enough.

I'd think they're going to save that for any future Eberron material, mainly so that that Eberron specifically breaks the established default assumptions.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-07-11, 08:14 AM

I'd think they're going to save that for any future Eberron material, mainly so that that Eberron specifically breaks the established default assumptions.

Or, they may not bring eberron back. Perhaps them not talking about it is because it won't exist and we will get an entirely new setting in which to work with?

Hahaha yeah right :smallsigh:

obryn

2014-07-11, 08:16 AM

It would be like playing a gnome in Dark Sun, when there are no gnomes in Dark Sun so it makes no sense to have them anywhere.

What about the fact that one of the Sorcerer-kings is known for genociding the gnomes? Or the fact that this gnome's arrival will put up a challenge for said sorcerer-king to be sure they didn't miss any?

Besides, assuming a sorcerer-king or servant doesn't whack him, what does his story give that character of another race would? What makes being a gnome here actually that important?

Everyone would try him as a dwarf and he would most likely end up acting like a dwarf, because everyone would treat him that. Plus, who cares in Dark Sun if he is a gnome or dwarf besides a Sorcerer-king making sure that they killed all the gnomes?
Funny story - in addition to a Warforged, I ended up having a Gnome in my Dark Sun game. I was adapting City by the Silt Sea; we added him when the players were literally inside Dregoth's castle. More or less, he snuck in through Dregoth's big, scary Mirror and got stuck here.

It worked out great. Sadly, we never got to the point where Andropinis caught wind of it - the player wasn't there for a long time - but it was a lot of fun.

This is a heck of a lot of work to dump on a new DM, and is something best for more advanced players who've supplemented their Starter Set and Core 3 books with other, more specialized splats providing more options.

Not something you want to dump on everyone buying the system core.
Ehhh, there's going to be Drow in the PHB.

Also, I don't think we give new players and new DMs enough credit.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-07-11, 08:43 AM

I find the phrase "it makes no sense for X race to be in Y setting" to be a bit... Lazy? I mean, first off this entire game is set around fantasy so having a race show up for Z reason shouldn't be a hard stretch.

Just because the creators didn't want to put that race into a setting doesn't mean a player or DM can't or shouldn't. I've always seen this to be a good door to open up a great background or roleplay.

Only gnome to be known in Darksun? Perhaps a wealthy woman/man wants one as a slave/pet and sends slavers out to capture the exotic creature from time to time? Perhaps eventually she helps the party in return for a chance to meet with the gnome (in hopes to catch him/her). Over the years they could come to strongly hate each other or maybe they fall in love?

Getting settings off the railroad is a great way to open up potential RP and such.

obryn

2014-07-11, 08:47 AM

Person_Man

2014-07-11, 08:50 AM

Spelljammer was my favorite 2E setting. D&D + Star Trek FTW!

Also, my 3.5 homebrew setting is ancient Rome and Greece where all myths are real and different nations are different races and Rome and Athens are cosmopolitan mixing bowls, so I have no trouble with parties of lots of different races or all the same race, depending on whatever the players want.

Morty

2014-07-11, 08:51 AM

"That's just how they are" is a terrible reason, I agree. Much more interesting to have evil gods not give their races free will, or to instill a deep hunger and satisfaction for consuming a sentient creature because of the nutrients and hormone levels found in the body that are most delicious when the victim dies in a blind panic

"Gods made them that way" is the exact same thing as "that's just how they are", only phrased differently.

Also, I don't think we give new players and new DMs enough credit.

That seems to be a recurring thing with D&D Next.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-07-11, 08:52 AM

http://i.imgur.com/kVbAGWh.jpg

Yes, and I hope that Spell Jammer replaces Eberron in 5e (or maybe merge the 2). However my point still stands, saying any specific creature can't be in a specific fantasy setting is weird. You don't have to go all "beholder mount being risen by a mind flayer" to do so.

I find Spell Jammer to be the opposite extreme, to the point of silly sometimes. But I love it since it is more allowing of players to make a character that they want to play than some other settings.

Yuki Akuma

2014-07-11, 08:56 AM

I find Spell Jammer to be the opposite extreme, to the point of silly sometimes. But I love it since it is more allowing of players to make a character that they want to play than some other settings.

Spelljammer was originally written as a huge "**** you" to the current manager of TSR (Lorraine Williams), who hated fantasy and silly games. So yeah. It's intentionally parodic.

Inevitability

2014-07-11, 09:58 AM

Spelljammer was originally written as a huge "**** you" to the current manager of TSR (Lorraine Williams), who hated fantasy and silly games. So yeah. It's intentionally parodic.

I have never played it, but when I first read about the Giant Space Hamster, I got that idea too.

http://www.headinjurytheater.com/images/d&d%20beasts%20giant%20space%20hamster.jpg

da_chicken

2014-07-11, 10:07 AM

I find the phrase "it makes no sense for X race to be in Y setting" to be a bit... Lazy? I mean, first off this entire game is set around fantasy so having a race show up for Z reason shouldn't be a hard stretch.

I disagree.

It depends on the campaign world. Specifically, it depends on how xenophobic the campaign world's races are, and what level of diversity exists in the campaign world. If we're talking about Middle Earth where the largest human city might have fewer than 20 demihumans and they're all dwarves, elves, and halflings and the residents are likely to view anything weirder than that as an evil monster that should be killed on sight, then your dragonborn is not appropriate for the campaign world as it will not be welcome by any NPC the party is expected to interact with. If we're talking about say, Westeros or Sanctuary, then there are no demihumans at all and even foreign human cultures and nations are viewed with deep suspicion. In that case even playing a half-elf is probably not appropriate. By trying to introduce one, you're spoiling the suspension of disbelief. This is why I hate snowflake races.

DM: "Uh, P, I'm looking at your character sheet. Dragonborn are not a PC race in this campaign."
P: "I traveled the planes and found myself in Sanctuary!"
DM: "At level 1."
P: "Yeah?"
DM: "With nothing but..."
<examines character sheet>
DM: "Scale armor, a longsword, a shield, 10 days rations, 50 feet of rope, and 30gp."
P: "Yeah."
DM: "And nobody has tried to kill you in this world that's been repeatedly plagued with endless waves of fiends and monsters, in spite of the fact that your description and their description pretty much matches spot on as far as the local populace are concerned."
P: "Well, no."
DM: :smallfurious:

There are other campaigns and other characters. Pick something appropriate for the campaign being run.

rlc

2014-07-11, 10:07 AM

playtesting,
of a race? unless it has questionable powers I think you really need much testing once you get enough made and testing to know the math. I'm going to pick this out specifically because, yes, playtesting can be pretty important, especially considering that this edition had a 2 year playtest.
With a limited number of ability scores, there are also a limited number of combinations of races and subraces that you can have before you have to start reusing them. Sure, you can just slap different numbers on different races, but even that will get old after awhile if the races don't have good enough powers. For example, if they're a dwarf with +2 str and con, why would I want to play a half orc if it gets only +1 to one of those? It has to have something else (whatever that ends up being).

pwykersotz

2014-07-11, 10:20 AM

"Gods made them that way" is the exact same thing as "that's just how they are", only phrased differently.

In a setting where the gods are unknowable and beyond interaction, yes. But in any D&D game where deities can be directly talked to and interfere with divine power in places, no it's not. It's the difference between "a wizard did it" and "fifteen years ago the wizard Steve Hatescuteness created a magical plague that turned all raccoons into fiendish owlbears". One has more potential than the other for characters to interact meaningfully with it.

Jakodee

2014-07-11, 10:20 AM

I was never under the impression that was a bad thing. I'm curious, would you call an American, someone from Africa, a Chinese man, a Mexican and a guy from India all working together as a "freak show" team? :smallamused:

Considering some of the rarities here, yes, i WOULD consider a fairy, talking dog, robot, and time traveling ninja a freak show. I'm saying races are not RACES.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-07-11, 10:50 AM

"Gods made them that way" is the exact same thing as "that's just how they are", only phrased differently.

Yup.

I disagree.

It depends on the campaign world. Specifically, it depends on how xenophobic the campaign world's races are, and what level of diversity exists in the campaign world. If we're talking about Middle Earth where the largest human city might have fewer than 20 demihumans and they're all dwarves, elves, and halflings and the residents are likely to view anything weirder than that as an evil monster that should be killed on sight, then your dragonborn is not appropriate for the campaign world as it will not be welcome by any NPC the party is expected to interact with. If we're talking about say, Westeros or Sanctuary, then there are no demihumans at all and even foreign human cultures and nations are viewed with deep suspicion. In that case even playing a half-elf is probably not appropriate. By trying to introduce one, you're spoiling the suspension of disbelief. This is why I hate snowflake races.

DM: "Uh, P, I'm looking at your character sheet. Dragonborn are not a PC race in this campaign."
P: "I traveled the planes and found myself in Sanctuary!"
DM: "At level 1."
P: "Yeah?"
DM: "With nothing but..."
<examines character sheet>
DM: "Scale armor, a longsword, a shield, 10 days rations, 50 feet of rope, and 30gp."
P: "Yeah."
DM: "And nobody has tried to kill you in this world that's been repeatedly plagued with endless waves of fiends and monsters, in spite of the fact that your description and their description pretty much matches spot on as far as the local populace are concerned."
P: "Well, no."
DM: :smallfurious:

There are other campaigns and other characters. Pick something appropriate for the campaign being run.

Siiigh. Yes because that is exactly how it work.

There are a ton of explanations for why that race is in that world. Using a very narrow way of thinking doesn't help your case.

BBEG messed up on a calling spell, called the dragon born and then threw him away (somehow the PC survived) due to him being a failure. Now the PC wants revenge for abducting him and not giving him a way home, or for almost killing him.

Boom, plausible and open background. This gives everyone, the player and DM, stuff to work with.

HeadlessMermaid

2014-07-11, 10:55 AM

Well, the "original campaign" (although LOTR wasn't particularly influential to the origins of D&D) was the original freak show. It was a given that the dwarf hates the elf's guts, the human is underwhelmed by the hobbits, the elf looks down on everyone, nobody trusts the human, and only the "aasimar" keeps them working together. In-universe, the fellowship was anything but a natural alliance. Only extreme circumstances forced these radically different humanoids to cooperate. [Result: an endless series of D&D parties where the elf and the dwarf insult each other 24/7.]

So it depends on the campaign. And the setting obviously, but even within the same setting you can have one campaign where everyone is a Goliath from the same village, another one where everyone is from the same area but from a different basic race, and another one where a waforged, a half-ogre, an awakened bat, a pixie and a phrenic tiefling walk into a bar. (Though of course, some settings are more themed than others, and may have more restrictions.) There's nothing intrinsically wrong with any of these approaches, it's just a matter of what you want to play.

Eventually, I expect the game to support any and all of the above, but it's normal to focus on the basic races for starters.

Dr.Starky

2014-07-11, 11:02 AM

The classic D&D races appeal to a fairly narrow set of tastes, so it's good to provide options that appeal beyond those tastes by default.

If your setting is really incompatible with a certain race, then just say no. Doesn't seem so hard.

Karkos

2014-07-11, 11:07 AM

I was never under the impression that was a bad thing. I'm curious, would you call an American, someone from Africa, a Chinese man, a Mexican and a guy from India all working together as a "freak show" team? :smallamused:

Oi Vey *facepalm*

That was some of the most obvious baiting I've read in a thread in a long time.

ArqArturo

2014-07-11, 11:18 AM

Never really liked the Tieflings, anyway. Genasi, on the other hand, are awesome.

da_chicken

2014-07-11, 11:53 AM

The classic D&D races appeal to a fairly narrow set of tastes, so it's good to provide options that appeal beyond those tastes by default.

Personally I think a fairly narrow number of character archetypes require non-classic races. I also prefer to have fewer races that are totally alien

If you setting is really incompatible with a certain race, then just say no. Doesn't seem so hard.

Yeah. There's just one player who just never listens to the campaign rules. Normally it's fine because he tends toward fairly normal characters, but it seems like whenever someone runs anything outside FR he always seems to pick something that is specifically not allowed. It's like he thinks, "Oh, exotic campaign? I should play the most exotic thing evar!" without paying attention to the type of exotic being run. Since I like to run outside FR, he does it a lot in my campaigns. It's frustrating to feel ignored in session 1 of the campaign consistently. The other players get irritated by it, too, because he consistently has to remake his character during session 1.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-07-11, 12:01 PM

Never really liked the Tieflings, anyway. Genasi, on the other hand, are awesome.

Oh hell yeah.

Though in all honesty you could make the race be "Outsider" and all the sub races be all the different outsider races.

So then you could get a Tiefling, Genasai, or Aasimars.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-07-11, 12:03 PM

Personally I think a fairly narrow number of character archetypes require non-classic races. I also prefer to have fewer races that are totally alien

Yeah. There's just one player who just never listens to the campaign rules. Normally it's fine because he tends toward fairly normal characters, but it seems like whenever someone runs anything outside FR he always seems to pick something that is specifically not allowed. It's like he thinks, "Oh, exotic campaign? I should play the most exotic thing evar!" without paying attention to the type of exotic being run. Since I like to run outside FR, he does it a lot in my campaigns. It's frustrating to feel ignored in session 1 of the campaign consistently. The other players get irritated by it, too, because he consistently has to remake his character during session 1.

Have you ever stopped to think that he feels the same way most of the time? His taste are being ignored when you play a very narrow way.

Some people are just more flexible and liberal about options.

It really seems like he is getting forced to always play something boring for no good reason at all.

captpike

2014-07-11, 12:19 PM

This is a heck of a lot of work to dump on a new DM, and is something best for more advanced players who've supplemented their Starter Set and Core 3 books with other, more specialized splats providing more options.

Not something you want to dump on everyone buying the system core.

and in some settings gnomes are common. in some they are the only race. and in some humans are hunted down and killed on sight.

the more races the more options they provide

Sartharina

2014-07-11, 12:23 PM

the more races the more options they provide
Ever heard of "Choice Paralysis?"

More choices is not always a good thing.

da_chicken

2014-07-11, 12:26 PM

Have you ever stipend to think that he feels the same way most of the time? His taste are being ignored when you play a very narrow way.

Some people are just more flexible and liberal about options.

It really seems like he is getting forced to always play something boring for no good reason at all.

No, he just doesn't pay attention or doesn't remember. It's not just race, either.

He does stuff like bring a Spellscale Wizard to a campaign where there is no magic. Not low magic. No magic. Like dead magic zone encompassing the whole campaign world. Or a Paladin to a campaign that's going to be with evil aligned characters. IIRC, he once brought a Tiefling Warlock to the Call of Cthulhu game that was set in 1950s Chicago. I didn't play that campaign, but they still give him **** about it. Then we go to FR, and he runs Human Wizards, Elvish Druids, and Dwarven Clerics. He's a really nice guy and great once the campaign is running, but session 1 he's pretty infuriating. It's hilarious, but infuriating.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-07-11, 12:32 PM

Ever heard of "Choice Paralysis?"

More choices is not always a good thing.

Ok, listen, I can't stand captpike. But I'm about to take his side (at least on this specific thing)so please note how hard this is for me.

You are talking about choice paralysis in a game where the whole point is to make choice after choice. The only time choice paralysis is really a problem is when you are making a choice, in the fly. I don't know about you, but I tend to make characters a few days in advance or have backups waiting.

Choice paralysis is only a problem when the outcome of the choice is a serious problem. D&D characters are not a serious problem. Deciding what vendor to use for your comoany? Serious problem. Choosing between 20 races for a fantasy make believe game isn't a serious problem.

One might say that having this choice paralysis in D&D is a good problem to have. Like having 6 good starting pitchers on a baseball team. You can't keep them all (normally) so you have to make a choice on who isn't a starter.

captpike

2014-07-11, 12:35 PM

I'm going to pick this out specifically because, yes, playtesting can be pretty important, especially considering that this edition had a 2 year playtest.
With a limited number of ability scores, there are also a limited number of combinations of races and subraces that you can have before you have to start reusing them. Sure, you can just slap different numbers on different races, but even that will get old after awhile if the races don't have good enough powers. For example, if they're a dwarf with +2 str and con, why would I want to play a half orc if it gets only +1 to one of those? It has to have something else (whatever that ends up being).

obviously you should keep the stat boosts the same. meaning if one race gets +2 to one stat, you should not have other races only give +1 to one stat.

yes there are a limited number of combos but so what? stats are only part of what a race gives you. having two races that give +2 str or something would not be a bad thing anyway it would give you more options when you want to make a strong character

the thing is that the minor bonuses are small enough to not really need testing, or they have had testing already (like when you give a race a power a class already has, or gaining proficiency in something)

pwykersotz

2014-07-11, 12:40 PM

Have you ever stopped to think that he feels the same way most of the time? His taste are being ignored when you play a very narrow way.

Some people are just more flexible and liberal about options.

It really seems like he is getting forced to always play something boring for no good reason at all.

I hate to dispute you because I agree that interesting races/classes/mechanics are fun a lot of time. However...

Being able to justify something does not inherently mean the story and game are better off for having it. I could justify Hogwarts having access to semi-automatic weapons to fight the Death Eaters in Harry Potter, but as evidenced by many fanfics, the story would have been the worse for it.

On the other hand, if some groups want to play that out, they certainly can. Your group seems like the type to do just that, and you'll probably have a blast. Some of us look for different things in a game though. You toss out the words 'flexible' and 'liberal' as if they are something to aspire to. I would argue they are not, they are just more tools in the toolkit.

1337 b4k4

2014-07-11, 12:40 PM

Choice paralysis is only a problem when the outcome of the choice is a serious problem.

Strictly speaking, this isn't true. Choice paralysis appears all the time in your life, and sometimes from some of the dumbest "choices". Things like "which brand of peanut butter should I buy" or "what motor oil should I buy" can (and does) lead to choice paralysis all the time. There is a balance between too few and too many races in the book and it's a balance dictated by more than just the page count. Whether WotC has hit that balance or not I couldn't say, but it does exist. It's part of the whole reason why the starter set is coming with pre-gens only and no char gen rules. Because they want to eliminate all the up front choices you need to make before getting into the game.

captpike

2014-07-11, 12:47 PM

I hate to dispute you because I agree that interesting races/classes/mechanics are fun a lot of time. However...

Being able to justify something does not inherently mean the story and game are better off for having it. I could justify Hogwarts having access to semi-automatic weapons to fight the Death Eaters in Harry Potter, but as evidenced by many fanfics, the story would have been the worse for it.

On the other hand, if some groups want to play that out, they certainly can. Your group seems like the type to do just that, and you'll probably have a blast. Some of us look for different things in a game though. You toss out the words 'flexible' and 'liberal' as if they are something to aspire to. I would argue they are not, they are just more tools in the toolkit.

the difference is that harry potter would be a setting, if you were making a game of it you would be making the rules with a certain setting set in stone.

D&D does not work that way the PHB is more of a toolbox to let different settings work then anything else. if one person picks up the PHB and wants to run their ice age campaign, and another picks it up and wants to run eberon it has to work for both.
that is why having more races is good, and of course being able to support rare or one-off examples of races also is good.

pwykersotz

2014-07-11, 12:58 PM

the difference is that harry potter would be a setting, if you were making a game of it you would be making the rules with a certain setting set in stone.

D&D does not work that way the PHB is more of a toolbox to let different settings work then anything else. if one person picks up the PHB and wants to run their ice age campaign, and another picks it up and wants to run eberon it has to work for both.
that is why having more races is good, and of course being able to support rare or one-off examples of races also is good.

I agree 100%. But you can make the Vancian equivalent of Harry Potter as well with D&D, just like you can make Ice Age or Eberron. Inserting something that doesn't belong doesn't necessarily make the story better. That's all I'm saying. SpawnOfMorbo seems to advocate that free choice, regardless of setting, should always be the highest goal. I think it's a goal that's fine to have, but it doesn't trump games that like to restrict options to what is reasonable for the setting.

captpike

2014-07-11, 01:07 PM

I agree 100%. But you can make the Vancian equivalent of Harry Potter as well with D&D, just like you can make Ice Age or Eberron. Inserting something that doesn't belong doesn't necessarily make the story better. That's all I'm saying. SpawnOfMorbo seems to advocate that free choice, regardless of setting, should always be the highest goal. I think it's a goal that's fine to have, but it doesn't trump games that like to restrict options to what is reasonable for the setting.

sure, as you said a game made for harry potter should not have guns, it would not fit the setting. but that logic does not work for the PHB, because the PHB can't just support one setting it has to support as many as possible.

pwykersotz

2014-07-11, 01:11 PM

sure, as you said a game made for harry potter should not have guns, it would not fit the setting. but that logic does not work for the PHB, because the PHB can't just support one setting it has to support as many as possible.

Yes, I was referring more to SpawnOfMorbo's point that is exemplified by his earlier quote in the thread.

I find the phrase "it makes no sense for X race to be in Y setting" to be a bit... Lazy? I mean, first off this entire game is set around fantasy so having a race show up for Z reason shouldn't be a hard stretch.

I agree that a wide variety of playable races works best to include in the game as a whole.

da_chicken

2014-07-11, 01:14 PM

Ok, listen, I can't stand captpike. But I'm about to take his side (at least on this specific thing)so please note how hard this is for me.

You are talking about choice paralysis in a game where the whole point is to make choice after choice. The only time choice paralysis is really a problem is when you are making a choice, in the fly. I don't know about you, but I tend to make characters a few days in advance or have backups waiting.

Choice paralysis is only a problem when the outcome of the choice is a serious problem. D&D characters are not a serious problem. Deciding what vendor to use for your comoany? Serious problem. Choosing between 20 races for a fantasy make believe game isn't a serious problem.

One might say that having this choice paralysis in D&D is a good problem to have. Like having 6 good starting pitchers on a baseball team. You can't keep them all (normally) so you have to make a choice on who isn't a starter.

I disagree. Choice overload can happen whenever you are trying to pick between a number of equivalent or near-equivalent choices and you don't have any inclination about what you want to take. Cleric spell selection and general feat selection are chronic situations that cause this for me. Usually it's something like, "I'm tired of taking death ward," followed by 20 minutes of searching the PHB and Spell Compendium before giving up and writing death ward down again. My condition was "not death ward, but still good," and too many options prevents making that choice because who knows if air walk is better or worse than spell immunity. Seriousness has nothing to do with it. Remember, choice overload is a phenomenon first observed by the marketing and advertising industries for consumer products.

And it's not a good problem to have because if you can't make a choice you usually can't decide later if you made the right choice (i.e., buyer's remorse). Thus, you will be inclined to be dissatisfied with your results, whatever they may be. That's not the kind of feeling a choice in a game should be causing.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-07-11, 01:20 PM

Strictly speaking, this isn't true. Choice paralysis appears all the time in your life, and sometimes from some of the dumbest "choices". Things like "which brand of peanut butter should I buy" or "what motor oil should I buy" can (and does) lead to choice paralysis all the time. There is a balance between too few and too many races in the book and it's a balance dictated by more than just the page count. Whether WotC has hit that balance or not I couldn't say, but it does exist. It's part of the whole reason why the starter set is coming with pre-gens only and no char gen rules. Because they want to eliminate all the up front choices you need to make before getting into the game.

Choice paralysis can exist and it not be a problem. Choice paralysis in D&D will always be around and there is nothing anyone can do about it because that is just how things work.

But if you are making a game and your justification of less diversity in races is "choice paralysis" then I'm sorry, that is a lazy excuse.

It would be like saying that adding another synonym for "bad" will cause to much choice paralysis when trying to pick a synonym for bad. Adding one more choice, or ten, doesn't actually make the problem any worse.

captpike

2014-07-11, 01:20 PM

I disagree. Choice overload can happen whenever you are trying to pick between a number of equivalent or near-equivalent choices and you don't have any inclination about what you want to take. Cleric spell selection and general feat selection are chronic situations that cause this for me. Usually it's something like, "I'm tired of taking death ward," followed by 20 minutes of searching the PHB and Spell Compendium before giving up and writing death ward down again. My condition was "not death ward, but still good," and too many options prevents making that choice because who knows if air walk is better or worse than spell immunity. Seriousness has nothing to do with it. Remember, choice overload is a phenomenon first observed by the marketing and advertising industries for consumer products.

And it's not a good problem to have because if you can't make a choice you usually can't decide later if you made the right choice (i.e., buyer's remorse). Thus, you will be inclined to be dissatisfied with your results, whatever they may be. That's not the kind of feeling a choice in a game should be causing.

that hardly applies to something you make once and never again for that character. particularly when its something that has more then mechanical implications like race.

Sartharina

2014-07-11, 01:26 PM

the difference is that harry potter would be a setting, if you were making a game of it you would be making the rules with a certain setting set in stone.

D&D does not work that way the PHB is more of a toolbox to let different settings work then anything else. if one person picks up the PHB and wants to run their ice age campaign, and another picks it up and wants to run eberon it has to work for both.
that is why having more races is good, and of course being able to support rare or one-off examples of races also is good.And this is part of the flaw of your argument. While D&D doesn't have a specific setting that nails down geographics, demographics, and politics, the "Core" of the D&D game does have a default metasetting with monsters, races, environments, and how they all interact with each other, allowing DMs to easily create worlds on the fly.

Save the exotic races and classes for splatbooks or Dragon articles.

rlc

2014-07-11, 01:55 PM

obviously you should keep the stat boosts the same. meaning if one race gets +2 to one stat, you should not have other races only give +1 to one stat.

yes there are a limited number of combos but so what? stats are only part of what a race gives you. having two races that give +2 str or something would not be a bad thing anyway it would give you more options when you want to make a strong character

the thing is that the minor bonuses are small enough to not really need testing, or they have had testing already (like when you give a race a power a class already has, or gaining proficiency in something)

Even then, you can only do it so many times before it gets repetitive. One elf gets a free wizard cantrip. Aasimars probably get a cleric cantrip and half-orcs probably get something from the barbarian or fighter class (and the same stat boost as the dwarf) And you already have the halfling who's half dwarf and gets stuff from both races. That already sounds like you're running out of ways to make races interesting.
Then you have the where's waldo elf and any other potential races with non-class based bonuses. I'm not saying they shouldn't be there, but they'll still need to be playtested, especially once you run into the need for more exotic abilities.
Should there be shardminds, goliaths and even a totally new and never before seen race with a super unique ability? Absolutely, but just because it's not in the first player's handbook doesn't mean anything.

1337 b4k4

2014-07-11, 02:09 PM

Choice paralysis in D&D will always be around and there is nothing anyone can do about it because that is just how things work.

There is absolutely something you can do about it. You can reduce the number of choices.

But if you are making a game and your justification of less diversity in races is "choice paralysis" then I'm sorry, that is a lazy excuse.

Let's be clear here. Based on the list at the beginning of this thread, there will be 9 races to choose from with a selection of sub-races. That's as many choices for race as there are alignments, 8 more choices than there are on planet earth. Now I think I could come up with a pretty diverse group of characters just using people from earth. With 8 additional races to choose from, diversity shouldn't be an issue at all. Are there other races that could be included? Sure. Should there have been? I don't know. Were there always going to be races there were left out of the PHB? Absolutely. The nature of printing a physical book, produced by physical human beings working within limited time constraints is that someone's favorite race was going to be left out. And frankly with 8 different races to use as examples, creating whatever favored race you feel has been slighted should not be an issue.

that hardly applies to something you make once and never again for that character. particularly when its something that has more then mechanical implications like race.

Actually, the fact that you choose your character's race once and you're stuck with it makes the choice more likely to produce choice paralysis and "buyers remorse" feelings.

Morty

2014-07-11, 02:19 PM

In a setting where the gods are unknowable and beyond interaction, yes. But in any D&D game where deities can be directly talked to and interfere with divine power in places, no it's not. It's the difference between "a wizard did it" and "fifteen years ago the wizard Steve Hatescuteness created a magical plague that turned all raccoons into fiendish owlbears". One has more potential than the other for characters to interact meaningfully with it.

How are they supposed to interact with it in a meaningful manner before reaching epic levels or becoming gods themselves? There's no cultural context, no biological imperative, no evolution. Just a player in a cosmic game of Civilization making it so.

pwykersotz

2014-07-11, 02:34 PM

How are they supposed to interact with it in a meaningful manner before reaching epic levels or becoming gods themselves? There's no cultural context, no biological imperative, no evolution. Just a player in a cosmic game of Civilization making it so.

You can have it be that white-washed, I suppose. But that's sort of up to the GM. The deity made the race evil, okay, cool. What did he intend for them to do? What underlying purpose does the race have that's hardwired into their psyche? Are there creative ways to sate the thirst for darkness that involve non-evil means for the dedicated? What about petitions to the gods via the means of spells for understanding, or deciphering ancient clues in holy/unholy texts?

I agree that the god saying "LOL, they're EVUL now! Eat it, good gods!" is boring, but it's not the position I'm arguing from.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-07-11, 02:48 PM

Tiefling page 1 and 2 are out on twitter.

Check out @Wizards_DnD's Tweet: https://twitter.com/Wizards_DnD/status/487684331477807104

HeadlessMermaid

2014-07-11, 02:53 PM

How are they supposed to interact with it in a meaningful manner before reaching epic levels or becoming gods themselves? There's no cultural context, no biological imperative, no evolution. Just a player in a cosmic game of Civilization making it so.

I believe there will be a lot of context in the books to come, though I'm not sure if that's the PHB/DMG, or if we'll have to wait for Forgotten Realms or something.

From what I understood, the basic concept with this edition is to sell flavour wrapped in a tabletop game. And hope that the flavour is so engaging, that it will spawn many flavour-heavy splatbooks and novels and games and maybe films. Whether they'll succeed remains to be seen.

With the basic set, we have a rules-heavy summary and very little flavour. I don't expect to ever use in my games races that were "created evil", but I'll give them the benefit of a doubt: if they make up a good story for it, I could pilfer some ideas. Inspiration is stealing, after all. :smalltongue:

Sartharina

2014-07-11, 03:02 PM

There is a heck of a lot more flavor in the basic set alone than the entire 4e Class Expansion (Martial/Primal/Arcane/Divine/Psionic Power) book series combined.

obryn

2014-07-11, 03:19 PM

There is a heck of a lot more flavor in the basic set alone than the entire 4e Class Expansion (Martial/Primal/Arcane/Divine/Psionic Power) book series combined.
Hm? Did you actually read them? Because this in no way matches the books I have. Especially the Psionics expansion.

WickerNipple

2014-07-11, 03:26 PM

Hm? Did you actually read them? Because this in no way matches the books I have. Especially the Psionics expansion.

What's the point of reading something when continuing an edition war is your goal? Just pick a side, dig in and start throwing hyperbole around. Doesn't really matter what's said anyway, they're talkin flavah!.

da_chicken

2014-07-11, 03:32 PM

Tiefling page 1 and 2 are out on twitter.

Check out @Wizards_DnD's Tweet: https://twitter.com/Wizards_DnD/status/487684331477807104

Direct links for convenience (page 2 is the crunchy one):

Page 1 (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BsR9qm9CcAA9_Ex.jpg:large)

Page 2 (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BsSaUIVCQAAG5En.jpg:large)

pwykersotz

2014-07-11, 03:36 PM

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-07-11, 03:52 PM

Direct links for convenience (page 2 is the crunchy one):

Page 1 (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BsR9qm9CcAA9_Ex.jpg:large)

Page 2 (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BsSaUIVCQAAG5En.jpg:large)

Ohhhh damn.

They don't just get to cast spells but they count as a Cantrip, 2nd level, and 5th level. I guess that will meet arcane casting requirements... Hmm..

* realization after reading the page again.

HeadlessMermaid

2014-07-11, 03:58 PM

Woah...Asmodeus is their progenitor, eh? Cool.

From "Brimstone Angels" (sample here (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/33509000_BrimstoneAngels_CH1.pdf)):

“All tieflings have the blood of Asmodeus,” he said. “Regardless
of who first dirtied the well. An effect of the ascension—it’s terribly
boring. Don’t worry about it.”

captpike

2014-07-11, 04:04 PM

And this is part of the flaw of your argument. While D&D doesn't have a specific setting that nails down geographics, demographics, and politics, the "Core" of the D&D game does have a default metasetting with monsters, races, environments, and how they all interact with each other, allowing DMs to easily create worlds on the fly.

Save the exotic races and classes for splatbooks or Dragon articles.
what? I must have missed that part of the rules, where they say every setting must include certain things or its not "real" D&D.

where is the page that lists the metasetting with what races are in it, what monsters are "real" ect.

Actually, the fact that you choose your character's race once and you're stuck with it makes the choice more likely to produce choice paralysis and "buyers remorse" feelings.

even were that true its hardly a big deal to have such a problem once and never again. so you spend 20min more then you should on your race, it happens once and then your done.

even if you accept that every time you have a choice you also have choice paralysis its only an issue during the game, any other time it does not matter.

akaddk

2014-07-11, 04:43 PM

I have never played it, but when I first read about the Giant Space Hamster, I got that idea too.

http://www.headinjurytheater.com/images/d&d%20beasts%20giant%20space%20hamster.jpg

Why you throw chip at Boo?

Sartharina

2014-07-11, 04:44 PM

what? I must have missed that part of the rules, where they say every setting must include certain things or its not "real" D&D.

where is the page that lists the metasetting with what races are in it, what monsters are "real" ect.I don't have the PHB yet, but the page number saying what Races are in D&D is the one labeled "Races". Page 11 of the Basic Rules gives an overview of the 4 primary races (Human, Halfling, Elf, Dwarf) and their most common subraces, as well as indicating less-common subraces such as Drow.

Page 33 of the Basic Rules explains how people fit into the world with personalities, physical traits, backgrounds, alignment, and THEP. It also talks about languages, and how they interact with each other and are related, breaking it into dialects and identifying alphabets. The way magic works in D&D starts on Page 78 in the Basic Rules. You can bet Core Rulebook I: Player's Handbook has even more information along these lines.

Monsters are in Core Rulebook 2: Moster Manual, and if it's anything like 3.5 or 4e's monster vault (And to an extent its Monster Manuals), it explains what the monsters are, what they're like, and how they fit into the world.

Core Rulebook 3: Dungeon Master's Guide gives information on taking additional aspects of the metasetting to create your own setting (Which tends to be more like "Create New World!" in Dwarf Fortress than creating an actual new world from scratch), if it's like the 3e and 4e DMGs.

All the information in the Core Rulebooks is information dedicated to the D&D Metasetting. You can feel free to change any of them when homebrewing and houseruling.

Millennium

2014-07-11, 05:25 PM

The top are "common" and the below are "uncommon".

My friends and I still don't get why the Tiefling is there but not the Aasimar.

Because tieflings are Cool And Edgy, while aasimar are boring.

captpike

2014-07-11, 05:25 PM

I don't have the PHB yet, but the page number saying what Races are in D&D is the one labeled "Races". Page 11 of the Basic Rules gives an overview of the 4 primary races (Human, Halfling, Elf, Dwarf) and their most common subraces, as well as indicating less-common subraces such as Drow.

Page 33 of the Basic Rules explains how people fit into the world with personalities, physical traits, backgrounds, alignment, and THEP. It also talks about languages, and how they interact with each other and are related, breaking it into dialects and identifying alphabets. The way magic works in D&D starts on Page 78 in the Basic Rules. You can bet Core Rulebook I: Player's Handbook has even more information along these lines.

Monsters are in Core Rulebook 2: Moster Manual, and if it's anything like 3.5 or 4e's monster vault (And to an extent its Monster Manuals), it explains what the monsters are, what they're like, and how they fit into the world.

Core Rulebook 3: Dungeon Master's Guide gives information on taking additional aspects of the metasetting to create your own setting (Which tends to be more like "Create New World!" in Dwarf Fortress than creating an actual new world from scratch), if it's like the 3e and 4e DMGs.

All the information in the Core Rulebooks is information dedicated to the D&D Metasetting. You can feel free to change any of them when homebrewing and houseruling.

what your calling the "metasetting" is nothing more then a set of suggested fluff, that some use, some do not. its suggested, they should not assume its used unless your talking about a setting book.

there is alot of suggested fluff yes, but that does not mean the game should only work for those who use it.

again the PHB should work for as many setting as possible, not just for settings that use all the suggested fluff.

russdm

2014-07-11, 05:52 PM

Can I please sig this?

Sure

There are other campaigns and other characters. Pick something appropriate for the campaign being run.

I think this sounds the best way to go.

If the entry for races are like the ones for Tiefling, then I would say that 9 or 8 races would give you about 18 or 16 pages worth. Plus, it certainly has most of the information on how to play the race present.

As for Gnomes in Dark Sun:

If you are doing it to tell a story that matters or is interesting, then it could probably work. If you are doing it to be the center of attention, then it probably doesn't work. If picking a race to play is being influenced by the idea, "Its all about me", then you may want to consider why you are even playing the game.

The party is a team with different stories, making sure that your story always sits on certain stage isn't the most decent of actions to take.

Not having Gnomes hasn't taken away from Dark Sun or damaged it in some way. In my experience, a setting without a particular race has not been worse off for the absence.

Lord Raziere

2014-07-11, 06:00 PM

Ever heard of "Choice Paralysis?"

More choices is not always a good thing.

which you can still have with very limited choices.

say we only had two races, but you liked both equally much. there is choice paralysis.

or how about a game where your only allowed to play a race you hate, you have to choose between being able to roleplay at all between not playing the race you hate, I can see choice paralysis in that.

less choices doesn't mean that choice paralysis goes away, it just means you confronted with less choices that are starker and more extreme because of how little there are, and less willing to choose one or the other because you might wish for a middle ground option or some other decision you can make. more choices is always better, as choice paralysis is a bad problem to have when its between two options you don't want to pick, while choice paralysis between a bunch of options you DO want to is not a bad problem to have in comparison. I'd rather have choice paralysis with riches aplenty than choice paralysis with little choices at all.

1337 b4k4

2014-07-11, 06:07 PM

again the PHB should work for as many setting as possible, not just for settings that use all the suggested fluff.

So how does the phb not work for a bunch of settings with these 9 races? How many other races should be included, and what justification do you have for leaving the races you choose not to include out? In this thread, we already have warforged, aisimar and full Orc. How about goblins, lizard men and elementals? What else? Beholders? Neogi? Giff? Thri-kreen? Illithids? Ogres? Kobolds? How about some non traditional D&D settings? There's 236 races to be pulled from Traveller. Should we include all those incase you wan to play D&D in space?

Serious question, what races should be in the PHB and what ones should be left out and why should they be left out?

Sartharina

2014-07-11, 06:13 PM

da_chicken

2014-07-11, 06:21 PM

Because tieflings are Cool And Edgy, while aasimar are boring.

Also, Aasimar sounds stupid and vaguely sexual when you say it out loud.

Edit: I like the race, it's one of my favorites, but the name is just godawful.

russdm

2014-07-11, 06:24 PM

So how does the phb not work for a bunch of settings with these 9 races? How many other races should be included, and what justification do you have for leaving the races you choose not to include out? In this thread, we already have warforged, aisimar and full Orc. How about goblins, lizard men and elementals? What else? Beholders? Neogi? Giff? Thri-kreen? Illithids? Ogres? Kobolds? How about some non traditional D&D settings? There's 236 races to be pulled from Traveller. Should we include all those incase you wan to play D&D in space?

Serious question, what races should be in the PHB and what ones should be left out and why should they be left out?

That's easy to answer:

Make a races book that lists all of the different possible playable character races and let the DM decide which ones he/she will accept. There are lots of choices that become available and it gives the DM to carefully pick and choose.

If that doesn't work, then the following would be my list:

Human
Dwarf, hill/mountain
Elf, maybe
Halfling, maybe
Lizardfolk
Dragonborn
Kobold
Goblin
Orc
Catfolk
Tiefling
Warforged
Goatmen

Subraces and where they go:

Gnomes, Special subrace of Dwarves
Kender, Special subrace of Demons
Hobgoblin, subrace of Goblin
Bugbear, subrace of Goblin
Black scaled lizardfolk, subrace of lizardfolk
Drow, subrace of Elf

Why subrace:

Gnomes have never been shown to be different enough from Dwarves to justify not being a special subrace of dwarves and not get the dwarven benefits plus their own.

Hobgoblin and Bugbears are both kinds of Goblin or have been, so sticking them there makes sense to me.

Lizardfolk with different colored scales are all lizardfolk and so should be treated as subraces under the lizardfolk umbrella.

Drow have always been Elves, just evil ones. They are technically a subrace of elves anyway.

Kender could have only come from Demons, given how Kender usually act, so they are naturally under the Demon race. Even better would be dropping them completely and just having a kind of Halfling that is fearless. Nothing about Kender was cute or appealing aside from their potential to annoy other players.

Sartharina

2014-07-11, 06:26 PM

what your calling the "metasetting" is nothing more then a set of suggested fluff, that some use, some do not. its suggested, they should not assume its used unless your talking about a setting book.No, that "Suggested Fluff" is nothing less than the Metasetting, sparking ideas and creating baseline expectations on how the world, no matter what world it is, works.

Setting that fluff aside and ignoring the metasetting is for more advanced players, and should not be an assumption of the system - they can do that themselves. (Again - I can run all sorts of games with Dark Heresy that have nothing to do with the Grim Darkness of the 41st Millenium, I can run games in Eclipse Phase that don't have anything to do with our solar system) It's better to have a vivid but focused metasetting for the core books to deliver a strong and memorable core experience, then expand/alter that core experience with splatbooks.

D&D 3.5 played Core Only is a completely different beast from D&D 3.5 with 10 (or ALL) splatbooks. Likewise, 4e with PHB 1, DMG, and MM1 is a different beast than 4e Essentials and Monster Vault. And then you can combine them all and have yet a completely different core experience again.

da_chicken

2014-07-11, 06:28 PM

Subraces and where they go:

[...]

Kender, Special subrace of Demons

[...]

Kender could have only come from Demons, given how Kender usually act, so they are naturally under the Demon race. Even better would be dropping them completely and just having a kind of Halfling that is fearless. Nothing about Kender was cute or appealing aside from their potential to annoy other players.

See, I always assumed they were descended from Ethereal Filchers (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/etherealFilcher.htm).

Otherwise, yes, they should print a Big Book of Races at some point.

pwykersotz

2014-07-11, 06:28 PM

Catfolk. They should put catfolk in.

They can remove Humans to make space. :smalltongue:

They'll probably want to remove the Dwarves and Elves too, just to make room for the subraces.

https://www.petfinder.com/cat-breeds/?see-all=1

Naturally they will all have different proficiencies and different stats.

Best nix the Halflings too, and replace the section with shiny, crinkly paper.

:smalltongue:

1337 b4k4

2014-07-11, 06:30 PM

which you can still have with very limited choices.

say we only had two races, but you liked both equally much. there is choice paralysis.

...

While this is strictly true, in general choice paralysis is accompanied by having more, not less choices. For example, when they studied the effects of choice paralysis on employees with 401k options, they discovered that mor employees contributed something to their 401k when the choices were limited to 3 or 4 options and less employees contributed when there were 10 - 12 options. The key thing about choice paralysis is that the paralysis comes from over analyzation. The more options you have, the more analysis you have to do, the more likely to generate choice paralysis. You may have also experienced this phenomena as someone looking at a blank piece of paper needing to write an essay. Yu sit for hours trying to come up with something, and can't. But if you just start writing anything, suddenly it starts flowing because so many choices are eliminated.

russdm

2014-07-11, 06:34 PM

See, I always assumed they were descended from Ethereal Filchers (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/etherealFilcher.htm).

Nah, there are too many stories of Kender being played in a way suggesting that Kender are either Demon or Oni related or just seriously bad news. The Filchers are more of a joke characters rather than dread inspiring like how Kender are viewed. People have reported freaking out about the idea of Kender being played. You don't get that with Filchers.

The only other race group you could Kender into besides Demons is of course Elves since they share some traits.

captpike

2014-07-11, 06:44 PM

No, that "Suggested Fluff" is nothing less than the Metasetting, sparking ideas and creating baseline expectations on how the world, no matter what world it is, works.

Setting that fluff aside and ignoring the metasetting is for more advanced players, and should not be an assumption of the system - they can do that themselves. (Again - I can run all sorts of games with Dark Heresy that have nothing to do with the Grim Darkness of the 41st Millenium, I can run games in Eclipse Phase that don't have anything to do with our solar system) It's better to have a vivid but focused metasetting for the core books to deliver a strong and memorable core experience, then expand/alter that core experience with splatbooks.

what is your basis for this? where does it say anything about this in the rules?

also don't confuse games where the rules were made to work and only work with a certain setting, even if you can change it with enough work with a game that was made to work with all different settings like D&D.

Sartharina

2014-07-11, 06:50 PM

what is your basis for this? where does it say anything about this in the rules? The same place it says to not throw mashed potatoes against the wall mid-session because it doesn't give any combat bonuses.

Where are you getting the idea that D&D is by default an "All Settings" game? There is nothing anywhere in the rulebooks to suggest that.

also don't confuse games where the rules were made to work and only work with a certain setting, even if you can change it with enough work with a game that was made to work with all different settings like D&D.
D&D isn't made to work with all settings. Where in the rulebooks does it say it is?

russdm

2014-07-11, 06:56 PM

D&D isn't made to work with all settings. Where in the rulebooks does it say it is?

"Its suggested by the Cat overlords and they shall have fish."

-Book of the Holy Cat Scripture, Book of Job, Chapter 3, Versus 15

obryn

2014-07-11, 08:49 PM

As for Gnomes in Dark Sun:

If you are doing it to tell a story that matters or is interesting, then it could probably work. If you are doing it to be the center of attention, then it probably doesn't work. If picking a race to play is being influenced by the idea, "Its all about me", then you may want to consider why you are even playing the game.

The party is a team with different stories, making sure that your story always sits on certain stage isn't the most decent of actions to take.

Not having Gnomes hasn't taken away from Dark Sun or damaged it in some way. In my experience, a setting without a particular race has not been worse off for the absence.
I was fine with the whole thing. The player wanted to play a gnome, and we worked together to make it interesting. Gnome came first, then the rest. The fact that they were in Dregoth's castle right then and there below Giustenal made it very easy to do.

Inevitability

2014-07-12, 12:58 AM

A bit late, but I just saw the Tiefling's page. My thoughts:

1. Holy Crêpe, that's some nice art.

2. Free spells. Cool.

3. No subraces. Too bad.

captpike

2014-07-12, 01:56 AM

The same place it says to not throw mashed potatoes against the wall mid-session because it doesn't give any combat bonuses.

Where are you getting the idea that D&D is by default an "All Settings" game? There is nothing anywhere in the rulebooks to suggest that.

D&D isn't made to work with all settings. Where in the rulebooks does it say it is?

the fact that every edition did in fact publish setting books intended to both support unique settings, and work with the PHB.

if they had a setting set in stone they would not do this, the only setting books would be the assumed settings.

Sartharina

2014-07-12, 02:10 AM

the fact that every edition did in fact publish setting books intended to both support unique settings, and work with the PHB.

if they had a setting set in stone they would not do this, the only setting books would be the assumed settings.When I open the setting books, the first few chapters are usually dedicated to overwriting the PHB.

Also, NOT every edition had setting books intended to support unique settings and work with the PHB - the AD&D settings were mutually exclusive and contradictory with each other. Athas had completely different restrictions on classes, Dragonlance had its own set of races, Spelljammer was completely alien, as was Planescape (In a different way)

Also, the setting books of 3e are all 3rd-party, with the exceptions of Forgotten Realms (Used as an example of taking the rules and completely changing them - and the FGCS book had extensive rewrites of the Greyhawk-oriented PHB - and the extra books are largely self-standing on their own), and the flagship setting Eberron, which ALSO dedicates several chapters to overwriting the PHB, and all other books produced after Eberron have "Unless you're playing in Eberron" clause in them to differentiate them from the Greyhawk Standard.

Even 4e had an assumed setting (Deities, and all the feats for each one in the PHB, the nature of Dragonborn and the assorted races, and their feats and powers and how they interact, and relics and magic items and... Some people go overboard with the refluffing of 4e. I can't figure out how they do it because it's so clear that there's a default in there), and the setting books for it all spend the first few chapters overriding and recontextualizing the core books. If the core books were written without an assumed setting, the Campaign Setting books wouldn't have to spend so much text differentiating itself from the core books.

Even then, all the Campaign Setting books still refer to the Assumed Setting of the core books to address expectations, then go through and highlight every point the specific campaign setting diverges from those expectations, all written with the context of the assumed D&D setting firmly in mind.

D&D isn't made to work with all settings - instead, all settings are made to work with D&D (By changing the rules of D&D where necessary). You have the relationship between them backward.

captpike

2014-07-12, 02:27 AM

When I open the setting books, the first few chapters are usually dedicated to overwriting the PHB.

Also, NOT every edition had setting books intended to support unique settings and work with the PHB - the AD&D settings were mutually exclusive and contradictory with each other. Athas had completely different restrictions on classes, Dragonlance had its own set of races, Spelljammer was completely alien, as was Planescape (In a different way)

Also, the setting books of 3e are all 3rd-party, with the exceptions of Forgotten Realms (Used as an example of taking the rules and completely changing them - and the FGCS book had extensive rewrites of the Greyhawk-oriented PHB - and the extra books are largely self-standing on their own), and the flagship setting Eberron, which ALSO dedicates several chapters to overwriting the PHB, and all other books produced after Eberron have "Unless you're playing in Eberron" clause in them to differentiate them from the Greyhawk Standard.

Even 4e had an assumed setting (Deities, and all the feats for each one in the PHB, the nature of Dragonborn and the assorted races, and their feats and powers and how they interact, and relics and magic items and... Some people go overboard with the refluffing of 4e. I can't figure out how they do it because it's so clear that there's a default in there), and the setting books for it all spend the first few chapters overriding and recontextualizing the core books. If the core books were written without an assumed setting, the Campaign Setting books wouldn't have to spend so much text differentiating itself from the core books.

Even then, all the Campaign Setting books still refer to the Assumed Setting of the core books to address expectations, then go through and highlight every point the specific campaign setting diverges from those expectations, all written with the context of the assumed D&D setting firmly in mind.

D&D isn't made to work with all settings - instead, all settings are made to work with D&D (By changing the rules of D&D where necessary). You have the relationship between them backward.

there is suggested fluff because its good for new players and DMs, or those who don't want to make/use a different setting no other reason.

the very fact you have such a huge missunderstanding about how fluff works means that time spent going slowing through and telling you "this is how this class works in this setting" is not wasted, it hardly means "X setting is set in stone, except in the 5 books where it changes"

Sartharina

2014-07-12, 02:33 AM

there is suggested fluff because its good for new players and DMs, or those who don't want to make/use a different setting no other reason.

the very fact you have such a huge missunderstanding about how fluff works means that time spent going slowing through and telling you "this is how this class works in this setting" is not wasted, it hardly means "X setting is set in stone, except in the 5 books where it changes"Where are you getting the idea that I think the setting is set in stone? There is absolutely nothing in a Tabletop RPG that is "Set in stone" - not the setting, not the classes, not the races, not the rules. We play on pretty paper and gridmaps (Sometimes), not massive tablets (Well, some of us play on tablets, but they're made of silicon, not stone. ANd certainly not permanent)

Arzanyos

2014-07-12, 02:36 AM

On the whole "Are evil creatures really always innately unchangingly evil" bit, I have this to say. Bluh. In my world, that will definitely not be the case, 'cause if it were, I couldn't have the awesomeness that is Tavern Storyteller Orcs and Fantasy Ancient Hawaiian Hobgoblins.

On the latest installment of the ongoing saga, "captpike versus the world", I once again find myself on the other team. I have to ask, captpike, are you a 3.x edition paladin? Because you seem pretty immune to the fear that your opinions on fluff might be wrong. Actually, you started off on the right track there, when you listed who the suggested fluff is for. But you are mistaken, the suggested fluff is set in stone. If you change it, you have actually made a change to the game, a houserule, if you will. Ain't nothin' bad about that, as long as your group is cool with that. Just don't expect your houseruling to be assumed as the standard.

captpike

2014-07-12, 02:42 AM

Where are you getting the idea that I think the setting is set in stone? There is absolutely nothing in a Tabletop RPG that is "Set in stone" - not the setting, not the classes, not the races, not the rules. We play on pretty paper and gridmaps (Sometimes), not massive tablets (Well, some of us play on tablets, but they're made of silicon, not stone. ANd certainly not permanent)

becuase your acting like everything should assume the fluff in the PHB is used. that its more then just a suggestion.

that is what this whole metasetting thingy you came up with is about, your assuming that becuase its in the PHB that means its set in stone, that every setting has to conform to it.

Arzanyos

2014-07-12, 02:58 AM

It is a logistical impossibility to write a splatbook without assuming a setting. If the splatbook is for a specific campaign setting, like Eberron, then it assumes the setting is Eberron. If it is not for a specific campaign setting, it still assumes there is a setting, a baseline, a default. Greyhawk. So, if you need a assumed setting, why not put it in the one book a table is guaranteed to have? And once you assume a setting for the PHB, why not use it as the default?

rlc

2014-07-12, 07:04 AM

Catfolk. They should put catfolk in.

They can remove Humans to make space. :smalltongue:

They should make a catfolk book.

...or a video where they're introducing all of the cat races, just because cat videos.

Dimers

2014-07-12, 09:27 AM

Best nix the Halflings too --

Nooooo! :smalleek: The catfolk need something to play w--

and replace the section with shiny, crinkly paper.

Nevermind :smallcool:

Sartharina

2014-07-12, 10:49 AM

becuase your acting like everything should assume the fluff in the PHB is used. that its more then just a suggestion.

that is what this whole metasetting thingy you came up with is about, your assuming that becuase its in the PHB that means its set in stone, that every setting has to conform to it.

It's a LOT easier to write the PHB if you assume the PHB has consistent fluff. In fact, they've explicitly stated this is a goal and one of the reasons they're using the Forgotten Realms as the primary setting of the game - all splatbooks and adventures are written under the assumption of the setting is Faerun (Can we get Tabaxi and Wemics as playable races, then? I'd love to see a sourcebook dedicated to the more wild and animalistic people of Faerun like Tabaxi, Gnolls, Wemics, etc.) Also - you've made it clear that you don't understand just how powerful and impactful dedicating more time and fluff to a certain race can make it more interesting and appealing to play. Sure, some people might change the fluff, or see something wrong with a race and refluff that - but it creates interest, and 'starting points' to refluff.

Something with this much information (Follow the link inside the link for the PDF (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/drfe/20080924) sells the idea of playing a Gnoll a heck of a lot more than just a statblock in the monster manual. Likewise, the Races of... series in 3.X expands upon each of a number of races - A chapter dedicated each to One new featured race, expanded information (Not crunch!) on two of the PHB races, and then a chapter dedicated to PHB-sized blurbs on several more exotic races - but even with those shorter blurbs, it's enriched the characters I've played by giving significant context for the place of my characters - the worlds they come from (What they were doing before becoming an adventurer), and the worlds they're entering (Adventuring life)

russdm

2014-07-12, 12:20 PM

They should make a catfolk book.

...or a video where they're introducing all of the cat races, just because cat videos.

There is nothing more entertaining than this, but I think it should be a dvd video containing as many cat videos as they could fit with the book. Computer textbooks have CDs attached in the back sometimes when you purchase them. This with a book of catfolk would be worth the money spent.

As for the war between Captpike and Others on Fluff/Races/Should Cats have a vote, I believe that Cats are not mature enough to learn how to vote and they need more proper instruction. That said, I don't have a problem with a cat running for congress since there is a town with an honorary cat mayor who seems to have done a very fine job of running things for quite a while. So the idea of Cat senators or representatives seems rather progressive.

I think there should be an honorary cat president of the United States just because its more likely to stop trouble from happening in DC. A congressman who can't stop being annoying despite a cat being present is not worth voting for.

We need actual congressmen/women in government, not children.

To be frankly honest, I don't know if Captpike is actually trying to argue a point or just being difficult for the sake of being difficult and I simply can't tell which it is. (Its not a very important point though)

There should balls of yarn for the cats and proper toys rather than crinkly sheets of paper. Personally, I think maybe some fake mice would work really well here.

akaddk

2014-07-12, 04:12 PM

Coming from Australia I have to put up with all the idiocy and nonsense of our Prime Minister, Tony Abbott. Sometimes it gets too much to handle and so I, and many others, need a break from it. This is why the Chrome extension "Stop Tony Meow" has become so wildly popular. It replaces all pictures of Tony Abbott on news websites with a random picture of a cute kitten.

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014/02/this-chrome-extension-replaces-tony-abbott-photos-with-cats/

So I, for one, welcome our new cat overlords.

T.G. Oskar

2014-07-12, 06:02 PM

Interjecting between the "more choices" and "less choices" options, and specifically on the part of which races should be part of the "default" setting...why Dragonborn and Tieflings are core 5e races, and not others?

If the default setting is assumed to be the Forgotten Realms...well, I'm pretty sure the Forgotten Realms setting has Aasimar as a core class. In fact, there's an entire region where they thrive, that being Mulhorand. However, they're conspicuously absent not just from the PHB, but from earlier playtests. They never appeared at all. And they should share enough billing as Tieflings do, if not more (Tieflings have no place to call their own, for once).

Then comes Dragonborn, a race built from a combination of Dragonlance's Draconians, 3.5's Dragonborn of Bahamut, and the need to have a "mascot" race for the new setting (and also because Dragonborn of Bahamut were well received compared to the other Races of the Dragon, AND they wanted a draconic race to fit a game called Dungeons & Dragons). They were interjected into the Forgotten Realms setting almost entirely by force, since before 4e existed they weren't part of the setting. And yet, they are part of the Core Rulebook I: Player's Handbook.

Why I say this? Because the argument that only a few races have to be on the Player's Handbook becomes flimsy when you try to justify how Dragonborn and Tieflings are part of the Core setting, the Core rules, rather than justify unusual choices. Kobolds, to give an example, have a good degree of traction, and are almost unofficially D&D's mascots (unofficially because of Meepo, that is). They were part of the Races of the Dragon, and existed with justification long before the Dragonborn. Yet, they aren't in the PHB. Why? Well, apparently they're monsters and not races, and should be kept as such. But then again, Aasimar (again: long standing Forgotten Realms race or at least as long-standing as a Tiefling, and are the closest thing to playing a Celestial you'll ever get) are conspicuously absent, and yet they have even MORE right to be a race than anything else.

The truth is, just like with the classes (though that may be untrue as of late because of how the playtest changed things), 5e was to include ALL races that were part in any moment of the Player's Handbooks of all earlier editions. Humans, Dwarves, Elves and Halflings are unequivocally part of ALL PHBs, so they are part of the Basic Rules. Gnomes, Half-Elves and Half-Orcs are sometimes in, sometimes out, so they are part of the PHB. So do Dragonborn and Tieflings, as they're part of the 4e PHB. This is the only reason why the choice of classes was placed as such, and the one that stands out thus far to scrutiny, given that we have an excerpt of the table of contents for the 5e PHB that shows that. No such thing as "the right races for the metasetting" or anything of those lines: all these classes belonged to a PHB, and thus they appear.

If it was "the races that belong to the setting used as default", then Dragonborn should have been replaced with Aasimar, and also get the Genasi. Even then, the unfortunate changes brought by the Spellplague mean the Dragonborn "always existed" and thus can remain, but for a setting that draws from all earlier editions, that feels wrong. But Aasimar and Genasi are absent, and there's no mention whatsoever of why they are: thus, how to play a Mul character born from the nobility (oftentimes of celestial heritage, mind you) and be unable to work with Aasimar if they don't exist? That's why this argument doesn't hold up. One more thing: note how they mention constantly more than one race. Sure: the example created character is Bruenor Battlehammer, companion of Drizzt. But...on the backgrounds? I didn't know Tika Waylan was a Faerunian; last I recall, mentioning the Companions of the Last Inn, she's a Krynn by birth and nature. There's also the quote from the Dragonlance novels, so placing Forgotten Reams as the default setting isn't the right argument either.

As for "choice paralysis": while the tendency goes that a wider amount of choices may induce combat paralysis, consider when you have an urge or a preference. More often than not, if one of the choices involves your preference, you won't have "choice paralysis" no matter how wide your options are: you'll always gravitate towards your preference. If there are two or three variants of your preference, then chances are you'll end up with "choice paralysis", but that's because the wider amount of choices related to your preferences are causing it, not the larger amount of choices overall. Think about it: when you're hungry and you decided to eat outside, you probably end up with "choice paralysis" when you don't have a preference for a specific kind of food. If you, on the other hand, have an urge for a specific kind of food, the only reason why you'd have "choice paralysis" becomes the variety of places that offer the kind of food you prefer, and/or the variety of choices within that same place that fit your preferences. Note, though, what happens: when you have a preference, you start discarding choices, so your actual choices are smaller. If you have a wider amount of choices, chances are you'll have more viable choices once you start discarding those you don't like, but chances are your preferences are so specific that you'll end up with one choice once you finish discarding the others.

The benefit of a larger amount of choices is that you allow players to have a larger amount of preferences. Think about it: if a player can't play an orc (its preference, because s/he likes a strong, feral race often misunderstood, and has a specific preference; it also involves mechanical aspects, because your build has the orc as a key component), then it has to discard its own preference, and start to fish for options that mimic its preference. No matter how many options you add, as long as you don't add the orc, it WILL involve choice paralysis unless there's an orc-expy that has enough of an orc to turn into a preference. A game without Humans WILL induce choice paralysis, because most people gravitate towards playing a human (they don't like fantasy races, for example) or will accept a Human as preference at a lack of their actual preference. Elves, Dwarves and Halflings have enough traction to remain, so dropping them will induce choice paralysis, as you're probably blocking that particular player's preference. This isn't considering a wider amount of choices; this considers that with less choices, chances are you can increase choice paralysis because you're narrowing the preferences that people may have. What it DOES do, as well, is reduce the duration of this choice paralysis because there's less options to analyze.

My preferences? I like Aasimar to a fault, but I also like Shifters and Warforged. None of the races are here. However, I also default to a Human most of the time, and I have a mild preference for Dwarves and Gnomes. I might have "choice paralysis" with the Basic Rules alone because I have none of my favored preferences, but I have two choices nonetheless that I favor. Having Elf and Halfling doesn't matter to me because, right from the start, I have discarded them. The choices are intentionally narrow, and I narrowed them further, and I still can say I have choice paralysis, particularly since the Human and the Dwarf both offer things I might want to consider. Class wise it'd be simple: I am a diehard fan of Paladins, which aren't on the Basic Set, but I consider myself a fairly good Cleric player so chances are I'll gravitate towards Cleric. If Cleric wasn't there? Chances are I wouldn't play, or I'd begrudgingly play a Fighter. On the PHB, though? I have MORE choices, and yet I'd gravitate towards Paladin in a heartbeat, but race-wise, I'd still be within Human and Dwarf because Gnome doesn't offer me stuff that'd allow me to favor a Paladin, so while I have a preference for Gnomes, a separate factor (building the character and how mechanics interject) offered me a reason why to discard one of my preferences. The choice of races and classes is much wider, but whereas in the realm of classes the existence of my definitely favorite preference nullified the notion of choice paralysis, in the realm of races I have the SAME choice paralysis as with the Basic Rules set, because in the end I'm facing the same set of choices as before. Had the PHB included the Aasimar, there would be no question.

Thus, to say that choice paralysis is induced by an increase of choices involves specifically ignoring the nature of preferences, or the tendency for humans to discard existing choices for other reasons than preferences.

rlc

2014-07-12, 07:01 PM

akaddk

2014-07-12, 07:32 PM

Pic related
https://24.media.tumblr.com/db29974ee38c20a6eea354845b41df25/tumblr_n4vtxajQY21t0atbzo1_500.jpg

This guy understands.

russdm

2014-07-12, 08:09 PM

Pic related
https://24.media.tumblr.com/db29974ee38c20a6eea354845b41df25/tumblr_n4vtxajQY21t0atbzo1_500.jpg

I couldn't tell what it was at first.

I think change to the races in the PHB would be nice, by adding in Kobolds and Aasimar (They really need a different name as the current one just sounds too much like buttocks) to the main book.

Another change would be making Gnomes a special type of Dwarf since if WotC is copying Gnomes from pre-4E, then Gnomes are better viewed as some kind of Dwarf.

We also need more slightly antihero races, since most of the standard races are your boring good races full of good people because only monsters are evil, blah blah blah. Elves are all CG, Dwarves are all LG or at most LN and halflings are NG with Humans being the only standard race likely to have evil members period. This particular horse has been beaten to death especially considering that the game runs on Murderhobo-ness and wishful thinking.

I want to play a character that is slipping into darkness while trying to do the right thing because that is interesting. Good heroes frequently tend to be boring because they get played as "never make an actual mistakes" (In my experience). People sometimes screw up, and edgy characters are more appealing.

Seriously, Jack Sparrow was more awesome than Orlando's character (whose name I have forgotten) until Orlando became a pirate. And Norrington was stuffy until he went pirate too.

akaddk

2014-07-12, 08:40 PM

Another change would be making Gnomes a special type of Dwarf since if WotC is copying Gnomes from pre-4E, then Gnomes are better viewed as some kind of Dwarf.
I doubt the gnome will change much from the playtest materials where they were heavily focused on being the "forest trickster type.

Seriously, Jack Sparrow was more awesome than Orlando's character (whose name I have forgotten) until Orlando became a pirate. And Norrington was stuffy until he went pirate too.
Well, none of them were evil either.

captpike

2014-07-12, 09:07 PM

So how does the phb not work for a bunch of settings with these 9 races? How many other races should be included, and what justification do you have for leaving the races you choose not to include out? In this thread, we already have warforged, aisimar and full Orc. How about goblins, lizard men and elementals? What else? Beholders? Neogi? Giff? Thri-kreen? Illithids? Ogres? Kobolds? How about some non traditional D&D settings? There's 236 races to be pulled from Traveller. Should we include all those incase you wan to play D&D in space?

Serious question, what races should be in the PHB and what ones should be left out and why should they be left out?

because 9 is too few given the resources (very few) it take to make a new race. 15-20 would be a good number.

Also, Aasimar sounds stupid and vaguely sexual when you say it out loud.

Edit: I like the race, it's one of my favorites, but the name is just godawful.

it would be nice if there was a "does this name in fact, sound stupid?" test for anything that will be said more then a few times in the game...

It's a LOT easier to write the PHB if you assume the PHB has consistent fluff. In fact, they've explicitly stated this is a goal and one of the reasons they're using the Forgotten Realms as the primary setting of the game - all splatbooks and adventures are written under the assumption of the setting is Faerun (Can we get Tabaxi and Wemics as playable races, then? I'd love to see a sourcebook dedicated to the more wild and animalistic people of Faerun like Tabaxi, Gnolls, Wemics, etc.) Also - you've made it clear that you don't understand just how powerful and impactful dedicating more time and fluff to a certain race can make it more interesting and appealing to play. Sure, some people might change the fluff, or see something wrong with a race and refluff that - but it creates interest, and 'starting points' to refluff.

Something with this much information (Follow the link inside the link for the PDF (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/drfe/20080924) sells the idea of playing a Gnoll a heck of a lot more than just a statblock in the monster manual. Likewise, the Races of... series in 3.X expands upon each of a number of races - A chapter dedicated each to One new featured race, expanded information (Not crunch!) on two of the PHB races, and then a chapter dedicated to PHB-sized blurbs on several more exotic races - but even with those shorter blurbs, it's enriched the characters I've played by giving significant context for the place of my characters - the worlds they come from (What they were doing before becoming an adventurer), and the worlds they're entering (Adventuring life)

I have no problem with suggesting fluff, it is a good idea and necessary for some players. but that is all it is, some will use it, some will not. just like the gods in the PHB, some will use them all, some will not use any gods, some will use a few, some will use a entirely different set of gods.

1337 b4k4

2014-07-12, 09:15 PM

because 9 is too few given the resources (very few) it take to make a new race. 15-20 would be a good number.

You dodged the question. What races should be included and what is your justification for the ones you leave out?

captpike

2014-07-12, 09:18 PM

You dodged the question. What races should be included and what is your justification for the ones you leave out?

the exact races is not as important as the number and variety. for example you should not put both lizardmen and dragonborn in the PHB, but there probably should be one or the other.

1337 b4k4

2014-07-12, 09:23 PM

the exact races is not as important as the number and variety. for example you should not put both lizardmen and dragonborn in the PHB, but there probably should be one or the other.

You're still dodging the question. You feel that 9 races isn't enough choice. So what other ones should be included and why is your particular number the "right" amount of choice? Why shouldn't it be 25 or 30? Or 50? Or 100? After all, it takes "very few" resources. And if dragonborn and lizard men shouldn't be together, can I take it you also think they should drop half-elves? Should they drop gnomes and halflings too since we already have "short people" covered by dwarves? And for that matter, how will your PHB be able to handle my setting wherein Lizard Men and Dragonborn are distant cousins locked in an eternal struggle over land and culture if you don't have them both? Didn't you just say it needs to support "as many settings as possible"?

captpike

2014-07-12, 09:37 PM

You're still dodging the question. You feel that 9 races isn't enough choice. So what other ones should be included and why is your particular number the "right" amount of choice? Why shouldn't it be 25 or 30? Or 50? Or 100? After all, it takes "very few" resources. And if dragonborn and lizard men shouldn't be together, can I take it you also think they should drop half-elves? Should they drop gnomes and halflings too since we already have "short people" covered by dwarves? And for that matter, how will your PHB be able to handle my setting wherein Lizard Men and Dragonborn are distant cousins locked in an eternal struggle over land and culture if you don't have them both? Didn't you just say it needs to support "as many settings as possible"?

because 15-20 feels right, it would allow a good combination of choices, yes there would be situations that would not be covered, but I would say that there is no good reason to not have at least 15.

the PHB needs to offer a huge variety of races even if it lacks depth, so maybe you only have gnomes OR halflings, and dragonborn OR lizardmen.

you support more settings by offering a huge variety then by offering 5 kinds of elf.

Envyus

2014-07-12, 11:21 PM

There are more races here then we have had in any other edition. Plus there are subraces for quite a few of them.

1337 b4k4

2014-07-12, 11:37 PM

because 15-20 feels right, it would allow a good combination of choices, yes there would be situations that would not be covered, but I would say that there is no good reason to not have at least 15.

And someone else would argue 25 feels right. And someone else 50. And each of them could say "there is no good reason not to have at least X". So again I ask you, other than your personal preference, why is your number of races the "correct" number. If it is your personal preference and only your personal preference, then that's fine. But then let's stop pretending they made some objective and critical error by missing your target number by 6.

the PHB needs to offer a huge variety of races even if it lacks depth, so maybe you only have gnomes OR halflings, and dragonborn OR lizardmen.

Are you suggesting that gnomes and halflings can't be part of a "huge variety"?

But ok, let's take this at face value. Give me your 15. Give me your "huge variety". And then justify for me why any races you don't include didn't make it on your list.

you support more settings by offering a huge variety then by offering 5 kinds of elf.

Yes, but you do a better job avoiding the "humans in funny hats" problem (and support more developed settings) by fleshing out your 9 races into subsets with sub cultures and motivations than by having 15 stereotypical "all klingons like war, all ferengi like money" card board cutouts.

captpike

2014-07-13, 12:02 AM

And someone else would argue 25 feels right. And someone else 50. And each of them could say "there is no good reason not to have at least X". So again I ask you, other than your personal preference, why is your number of races the "correct" number. If it is your personal preference and only your personal preference, then that's fine. But then let's stop pretending they made some objective and critical error by missing your target number by 6.

Are you suggesting that gnomes and halflings can't be part of a "huge variety"?

But ok, let's take this at face value. Give me your 15. Give me your "huge variety". And then justify for me why any races you don't include didn't make it on your list.

having only 9 races is like only having 2 classes. only giving races 9 pages is just stupid, there is no reason not to have more, but to sate that weird lust you seam to have for a meaningless list, here it is.

elf
human
dwarf
orc

tiefling
assimar or deva
halfling or gnome
lizardfolk or dragonborn
construct
magic folk (like Genasi or something)
undead race
plant person
shapeshifter

there are other ways to do it of course, but that list gives a huge variety, ideal they would give several sets of suggested fluff.

Yes, but you do a better job avoiding the "humans in funny hats" problem (and support more developed settings) by fleshing out your 9 races into subsets with sub cultures and motivations than by having 15 stereotypical "all klingons like war, all ferengi like money" card board cutouts.

that is only a problem when you use and only use the suggested fluff, for everyone else its a non-issue. they just want the rules to strap to their own fluff

every word of suggested fluff is one word that will be worthless to anyone who is using any setting other then forgotten realms, and even of them if they change any race it becomes worthless.

Gettles

2014-07-13, 12:08 AM

Speaking as a person who has never played any "official" setting in my life, I'm with catpike. Damn the setting, just give me all the options just an unending shower of races, classes and options with as little context as possible.

Give me the game, I'll make my own fluff with the confidence it will be 20x more rad than anything they give me.

Envyus

2014-07-13, 12:22 AM

captpike

2014-07-13, 12:28 AM

No D&D book has ever had that many races. Plus I find what they are doing with getting several main races and giving most of them Sub Races more interesting then your idea. Anyway they already said that rules for playing as monster races would be in the Monster Manuel.

why would the fact it has not been done before mean its a bad idea?

also why have a distinction between monster races and others? it just puts DMs off from allowing some races for no good reason, and gives Wotc an excuse for not supporting them like they should.

Thats fine for you but lots of people prefer you have something to go on first before they make changes. A default allows you to more or less understand how something is meant to work. If you don't like it or think it would be more interesting another way change it.

that is hardly a reason to have only a few races when they only take up one piece of paper each

for such people you have some default fluff.

Envyus

2014-07-13, 12:36 AM

why would the fact it has not been done before mean its a bad idea?

also why have a distinction between monster races and others? it just puts DMs off from allowing some races for no good reason, and gives Wotc an excuse for not supporting them like they should.

that is hardly a reason to have only a few races when they only take up one piece of paper each

for such people you have some default fluff.

I never said it was a bad idea. But what they did is fine and it's more then we have gotten before and I find it more interesting then your list.

Monster Races like Gnolls, Hobs and Kobolds are different because they are mostly used as enemies with the fluff supporting it. (Also they supported the **** out of Kobolds back in 3e as they were by far the strongest race in the game by the end.)

Each race should also be decently unique and interesting and if there are too many of them it's harder to do that.

Finally the Races we got clearly take up much more then a piece of paper each. All of them have at least 2 pages to themselves.

captpike

2014-07-13, 12:47 AM

I never said it was a bad idea. But what they did is fine and it's more then we have gotten before and I find it more interesting then your list.

Monster Races like Gnolls, Hobs and Kobolds are different because they are mostly used as enemies with the fluff supporting it. (Also they supported the **** out of Kobolds back in 3e as they were by far the strongest race in the
game by the end.

Each race should also be decently unique and interesting and if there are too many of them it's harder to do that.

the bolded is only true if you use the default fluff, maybe in my world hobs are scholars and known for their love of peace. no reason to use fluff that only some people will use to segregate races like that.

also its unreasonable to expect players (who would be the ones using such information) to have the MM. that is a DM book, and races are player information.

Finally the Races we got clearly take up much more then a piece of paper each. All of them have at least 2 pages to themselves.

only because they did not format it in a way that is either professional or logical. I am hoping they DO format the PHB in a way that is both professional and logical.

Kuulvheysoon

2014-07-13, 12:51 AM

A bit late, but I just saw the Tiefling's page. My thoughts:

1. Holy Crêpe, that's some nice art.

2. Free spells. Cool.

3. No subraces. Too bad.Maybe there's a third page of Tieflings with subraces? *Hopes*

having only 9 races is like only having 2 classes. only giving races 9 pages is just stupid, there is no reason not to have more, but to sate that weird lust you seam to have for a meaningless list, here it is.

elf
human
dwarf
orc
lizardfolk or dragonborn
halfling orand gnome
tieflingNo problems here, basic set

assimar or deva
construct
magic folk (like Genasi or something)
undead race
plant person
shapeshifterAasimar and Devas fill a different role, IIRC; Aasimar are celestial-blooded, while devas are more continually reincarnating outsiders (with no specific fluff tying them either to the the Heavens or the Realms).

Plant people, constructs and Shapeshifters can honestly wait until a supplement arrives - they're not huge figures in "standard" swords and sorcery, so I don't blame WotC for not including them.

Undead people would be kinda neat, though, I'll give you that, especially considering the whole situation in Thay (is it still all undead-infested? I read the Sundering, but none of those dealt directly with Thay save the Reaper, which was halfway through).

Honestly, I feel as if Tieflings shouldn't exist, and should just be brought down to a more general Planetouched race, with a literal tons of subraces (Tiefling, Aasimar and the elemental-blooded Genasi).

*Mind you, this is my opinion and, as such, you are free to disagree with it as you so choose.

captpike

2014-07-13, 12:56 AM

Aasimar and Devas fill a different role, IIRC; Aasimar are celestial-blooded, while devas are more continually reincarnating outsiders (with no specific fluff tying them either to the the Heavens or the Realms).

Plant people, constructs and Shapeshifters can honestly wait until a supplement arrives - they're not huge figures in "standard" swords and sorcery, so I don't blame WotC for not including them.

Undead people would be kinda neat, though, I'll give you that, especially considering the whole situation in Thay (is it still all undead-infested? I read the Sundering, but none of those dealt directly with Thay save the Reaper, which was halfway through).

Honestly, I feel as if Tieflings shouldn't exist, and should just be brought down to a more general Planetouched race, with a literal tons of subraces (Tiefling, Aasimar and the elemental-blooded Genasi).

*Mind you, this is my opinion and, as such, you are free to disagree with it as you so choose.

why would you have all the odd races wait for god knows how long to get a full write up, but give races that are all but the same separate write ups in the first book or two?

you don't need 3 different elf's as much as you need to have elves+2 new and interesting races.

1337 b4k4

2014-07-13, 01:22 AM

having only 9 races is like only having 2 classes. only giving races 9 pages is just stupid, there is no reason not to have more, but to sate that weird lust you seam to have for a meaningless list, here it is.

elf
human
dwarf
orc

tiefling
assimar or deva
halfling or gnome
lizardfolk or dragonborn
construct
magic folk (like Genasi or something)
undead race
plant person
shapeshifter

there are other ways to do it of course, but that list gives a huge variety, ideal they would give several sets of suggested fluff.

1) It's "seem" not "seam". I don't know whether or not english is your first language, but you've been corrected on this before, it would be nice if you made the effort to correct yourself.

2) The reason I wanted list from you is to make a point. From you list, neither Dragon Lance nor Spelljammer would be supported settings out of the gate. Dragon Lance requires Kender and Gnomes, Spelljammer had Beholders, Neogi, Giffs and Illithids. Beyond that, without Yuan Ti, you couldn't run a setting like Goblins has. If your final list had gnomes rather than halflings you couldn't even do LOTR.

In addition, even you couldn't present a finalized list. You cheaped out by going with generic "undead" or "magic folk" items rather than getting specific. I largely suspect that you did this because you know as well as I do that any list will by it's very nature of being limited exclude some items. Which means settings that depend on them would not be "supported" out of the gate (at least for your definition of support). Which has pretty much been my point all along. Your number 15 is just as arbitrary as 9, 13, 20, 25, 30 or 50.

3) You still haven't given a justification for leaving off the races that you did. As you said, it's not very many resources, so why couldn't you list include Halflings and Gnomes and Kender and Beholders and Illithids and Giffs and Neogi and Yuan Ti and any other arbitrary race?

I get that you want more races. That has never been something I dispute. But your argument for including more races is "support all the settings" and "it doesn't take a lot of resources". Neither of which gives us a good place to draw our line and stop devoting resources to races.

Edit
--------

Any choice of where you draw that line is arbitrary. And no matter where you draw the line, you will be excluding someone's favorite and some setting. 9 was an arbitrary number. Your 15 is arbitrary. Someone else's 25 is arbitrary. It's all personal preference and there is no objective standard. So please stop acting like there's some agreed upon number that WotC has failed to hit.

End Edit
--------------

that is only a problem when you use and only use the suggested fluff, for everyone else its a non-issue. they just want the rules to strap to their own fluff

every word of suggested fluff is one word that will be worthless to anyone who is using any setting other then forgotten realms, and even of them if they change any race it becomes worthless.

A) Well heck, if we're going that route, races shouldn't even BE in the PHB. They are almost 100% fluff. The only thing that should be in the PHB is a section that says "Ask your DM for the list of races in the world you will be playing and choose one. A race will give you some combination of +4 to your attributes and 1-4 special abilities. After all, why should elves get dark vision and int bonuses in my setting? That's pure fluff. D&D was intended to be a humanocentric game, so let's leave the races entirely out of the PHB since its 99% fluff and therefore "worthless".

B) Assuming you didn't actually mean to get that extreme, we can then assume that you recognize that not every DM (indeed I would suggest it's a minority of them) likes to build their entire worlds from the ground up. In that case, some default setting is handy and helpful, including default setting that makes each race more than just humans in funny hats and cardboard stereotypes.

only because they did not format it in a way that is either professional or logical. I am hoping they DO format the PHB in a way that is both professional and logical.

And exactly what is a "professional and logical" format for the races and by what authority do you declare it to be so?

akaddk

2014-07-13, 01:40 AM

Give me the game, I'll make my own fluff with the confidence it will be 20x more rad than anything they give me.

That's what they tried with 4e and look how that turned out.

Lord Raziere

2014-07-13, 01:49 AM

That's what they tried with 4e and look how that turned out.

....Well, with various classes that were better designed than any 3.5 one, that inspired me better than anything 3.5 made? that allowed to me play any class as any race? and allowed me to decide by myself what my characters were, where all their roles and what did was clear so what I wanted to do was clear as well? it was better than the mess that was 3.5 to me.

akaddk

2014-07-13, 01:59 AM

....Well, with various classes that were better designed than any 3.5 one, that inspired me better than anything 3.5 made? that allowed to me play any class as any race? and allowed me to decide by myself what my characters were, where all their roles and what did was clear so what I wanted to do was clear as well? it was better than the mess that was 3.5 to me.

Hey, I'm not arguing, I liked 4e. But trying to find anyone else who wanted to play it was an exercise in pointless frustration. And one of the biggest complaints of 4e was the lack of fluff. In other words, doesn't matter what WotC does, they'll never win over all the fans.

Sartharina

2014-07-13, 02:08 AM

why would you have all the odd races wait for god knows how long to get a full write up, but give races that are all but the same separate write ups in the first book or two?

you don't need 3 different elf's as much as you need to have elves+2 new and interesting races.D&D 5e's subrace system is actually pretty cool, allowing races to be expanded. There are two human subraces, as it is - one is Generalist Humans(+1s across the board), the other is Specialist Humans (Extra proficiency, and free feat at level 1!).

Right now, I'm homebrewing a "Fortress Dorf" subrace of Dwarves - instead of getting an attribute boost or other racial features, they get a powerful trance whenever they're outnumbered. And a whole lot of goofy fluff as well. Because Dwarf Fortress is awesome.

And honestly - I hope races get more than one page each to give a good feel for the race. No, they don't need a full chapter, but at least a page and a half to spark interest in them, and make elves more than "Pointy Eared Humans with Attributes X" - instead, the fluff makes them feel more like actual people and cultures.

And as for the Forgotten Realms races - Tieflings don't have a place to call their own, making them excellent adventurers. Aasimar are part of just one part of the world, like Wemics and Tabaxi. Dragonborn are shoehorned in, but I think they'll get along fine.

rlc

2014-07-13, 07:03 AM

also its unreasonable to expect players (who would be the ones using such information) to have the MM. that is a DM book, and races are player information.

Player: Hey, DM, the Monster Manual has monstrous races, right? I want to play one of those. Can I look at it?
DM: Sure, man.

That was hard.

cobaltstarfire

2014-07-13, 10:05 AM

I do wish that a few more of the core races were unique...I generally find it boring to play games as a human only with pointy ears, or a human only short and stout, or a human only child sized, or a human only vicious and green, and so on...

Sure there are playable monsters and things in the MM, but it's often a bit more complicated to turn one into a character, and in 3.5 a punishment since most have a level adjustment. Not to mention the fluff for monsters as races often leaves a lot to be desired.

That said, I do think it's good to try and keep a smallish number of core races. It makes life much easier for beginners, and experienced folks alike. I say this because the more different races you have in the core, the more other bits and pieces you need to add to the core for those races (items, feats, skills, deities, ect). That might even be why in the past certain races were spread out across many different books in the past, that way the new races could have options tailor made for them.

pwykersotz

2014-07-13, 01:29 PM

I think change to the races in the PHB would be nice, by adding in Kobolds and Aasimar (They really need a different name as the current one just sounds too much like buttocks) to the main book.

I propose Aesimar. (Long A sound)

Inevitability

2014-07-13, 01:39 PM

I propose Aesimar. (Long A sound)

Why not Deva's? Because lets be honest; if WOTC is ever going to give Aasimar a different name in 5e, that's going to be it.

Sartharina

2014-07-13, 01:51 PM

I propose Aesimar. (Long A sound)Actually, "ae" is just a digraphic representation of the graphme "Æ/æ", which is pronounced with a long E sound. The ae dipthong is usually used in fictional words to make them look more archaic, because words that used to use the dipthong (Dæmon, encyclopædia, etc.) were monopthongized into a simple "e" in the middle ages and later Noah Webster in his dictionary (Or left, as in archaeology, Caesar, Gael, and the like) - but the pronunciation as a long e is the same). It's the big reason I take such irritation that D&D and Pathfinder have "Daemons" and "Demons" be different things - it's two spellings (a conventional and archaic) of the same word and concept.

The "aa" is the dipthong representing the long A sound, and is of dutch and Old English (Rather than Latin) origin.

captpike

2014-07-13, 01:55 PM

And honestly - I hope races get more than one page each to give a good feel for the race. No, they don't need a full chapter, but at least a page and a half to spark interest in them, and make elves more than "Pointy Eared Humans with Attributes X" - instead, the fluff makes them feel more like actual people and cultures.
the problem being that this is wasted space for a large percentage of everyone using the book. where as any rules or options are not.

there should be some default fluff, but they need to limit it because its only useful to some people who play the game.

Player: Hey, DM, the Monster Manual has monstrous races, right? I want to play one of those. Can I look at it?
DM: Sure, man.

That was hard.

sure, its not like its possible for DMs and Players to live in different area's. or for more then one player to want to play such a race and need the book at the same time. or for a player to not even know such options exist.

That's what they tried with 4e and look how that turned out.

wildly successful? so you are saying they should do it?

2) The reason I wanted list from you is to make a point. From you list, neither Dragon Lance nor Spelljammer would be supported settings out of the gate. Dragon Lance requires Kender and Gnomes, Spelljammer had Beholders, Neogi, Giffs and Illithids. Beyond that, without Yuan Ti, you couldn't run a setting like Goblins has. If your final list had gnomes rather than halflings you couldn't even do LOTR.

In addition, even you couldn't present a finalized list. You cheaped out by going with generic "undead" or "magic folk" items rather than getting specific. I largely suspect that you did this because you know as well as I do that any list will by it's very nature of being limited exclude some items. Which means settings that depend on them would not be "supported" out of the gate (at least for your definition of support). Which has pretty much been my point all along. Your number 15 is just as arbitrary as 9, 13, 20, 25, 30 or 50.

3) You still haven't given a justification for leaving off the races that you did. As you said, it's not very many resources, so why couldn't you list include Halflings and Gnomes and Kender and Beholders and Illithids and Giffs and Neogi and Yuan Ti and any other arbitrary race?

I get that you want more races. That has never been something I dispute. But your argument for including more races is "support all the settings" and "it doesn't take a lot of resources". Neither of which gives us a good place to draw our line and stop devoting resources to races.

Any choice of where you draw that line is arbitrary. And no matter where you draw the line, you will be excluding someone's favorite and some setting. 9 was an arbitrary number. Your 15 is arbitrary. Someone else's 25 is arbitrary. It's all personal preference and there is no objective standard. So please stop acting like there's some agreed upon number that WotC has failed to hit.

A) Well heck, if we're going that route, races shouldn't even BE in the PHB. They are almost 100% fluff. The only thing that should be in the PHB is a section that says "Ask your DM for the list of races in the world you will be playing and choose one. A race will give you some combination of +4 to your attributes and 1-4 special abilities. After all, why should elves get dark vision and int bonuses in my setting? That's pure fluff. D&D was intended to be a humanocentric game, so let's leave the races entirely out of the PHB since its 99% fluff and therefore "worthless".

B) Assuming you didn't actually mean to get that extreme, we can then assume that you recognize that not every DM (indeed I would suggest it's a minority of them) likes to build their entire worlds from the ground up. In that case, some default setting is handy and helpful, including default setting that makes each race more than just humans in funny hats and cardboard stereotypes.

no I did give you the final list. it is not important what you call your undead race, or your plant people. the important part is that there is enough variety that you can get close in most settings. and that there are not alot of redundant races, like elf's and high elf's.

there is some suggested fluff in the real race info sure, the races that were not in the list were too close to ones that were. gnomes are too close to halflings to be have both in the PHB. nor do you need two construct races.

even if you are using your own setting its good to have the race info. I may not have dragonborn, but I do have lizardfolk, I change the name and fluff BAM, I have a race.

yes, the number I picked is arbitrary, just like the number of classes. if you only had 2 classes that would not be enough. 9 is just too few races, it leaves too many big holes and most of those that they do put in are just the old tolken ones.

And exactly what is a "professional and logical" format for the races and by what authority do you declare it to be so?
I use the authority that I am in fact human, therefor am capable of reason.

the races in the PDF had alot of useless fluff (why do I need to have suggested fluff on why dwarves have darkvision?) they described rules that were explained elsewhere, doing nothing but cause confusion. they added fluff that was just not needed (why do you need a quarter page on how elf's name's work?)

Sartharina

2014-07-13, 02:16 PM

the problem being that this is wasted space for a large percentage of everyone using the book. where as any rules or options are not.Any source on this other than your own myopia? (Then again, I don't really have any source to the contrary other than my own myopia)

And even then, it's usually not ignored - the more effort they put into the race's fluff, the more effort readers put into changing the fluff and making their variant good. Even if it's not used word-for-word, fluff derived from it is enriched by the greater baseline. Nobody likes replacing a masterpiece with garbage.
I use the authority that I am in fact human, therefor am capable of reason.

the races in the PDF had alot of useless fluff (why do I need to have suggested fluff on why dwarves have darkvision?) they described rules that were explained elsewhere, doing nothing but cause confusion. they added fluff that was just not needed (why do you need a quarter page on how elf's name's work?)So are the creators. So am I, so is the person you're arguing with. And we all agree that the fluff in the book is NOT useless. I wish ALL races had a quarter-page on how their names work (Especially catfolk. I'm sick of playing alongside Kitty Sparkle)

The fluff is what makes D&D Next feel more like an RPG and less like just a Tactical Miniatures Game.

captpike

2014-07-13, 02:27 PM

Any source on this other than your own myopia? (Then again, I don't really have any source to the contrary other than my own myopia)

And even then, it's usually not ignored - the more effort they put into the race's fluff, the more effort readers put into changing the fluff and making their variant good. Even if it's not used word-for-word, fluff derived from it is enriched by the greater baseline. Nobody likes replacing a masterpiece with garbage.So are the creators. So am I, so is the person you're arguing with. And we all agree that the fluff in the book is NOT useless. I wish ALL races had a quarter-page on how their names work (Especially catfolk. I'm sick of playing alongside Kitty Sparkle)

The fluff is what makes D&D Next feel more like an RPG and less like just a Tactical Miniatures Game.

...do you honestly think that most players play in the same setting?

why are you listing the number of people who disagree with me? doing so is meaningless.

I never said the fluff was meaingless, just that it is only useful to those who use the suggested fluff as-is. I don't know about your players but I know I will name my character what I want, not what the book tells me is "normal" making all such info worthless to me and a waste of space.

Envyus

2014-07-13, 02:31 PM

Envyus

2014-07-13, 02:33 PM

...do you honestly think that most players play in the same setting?

why are you listing the number of people who disagree with me? doing so is meaningless.

I never said the fluff was meaingless, just that it is only useful to those who use the suggested fluff as-is. I don't know about your players but I know I will name my character what I want, not what the book tells me is "normal" making all such info worthless to me and a waste of space.

No but most players still use the Default fluff for the creatures. A creature is assumed to be the same as the default fluff unless explicitly changed.

Also the info may be useless to you but not to other people. If you don't want to then don't use one of those names but for other people they are useful. (I remember how you used to say how your ways would make everyone happy. Clearly not)

It's really clear that you don't want an RPG.

Sartharina

2014-07-13, 02:42 PM

...do you honestly think that most players play in the same setting?My experience with multiple play-by-post, internet, and other games indicate that most players play in a setting 100% compatible with and based on the assumed metasetting. So... yes, yes I do, and my experience matches that.

why are you listing the number of people who disagree with me? doing so is meaningless.Your argument is that your playstyle/approach to setting is in the majority, when everything else indicates otherwise.

I never said the fluff was meaingless, just that it is only useful to those who use the suggested fluff as-is. I don't know about your players but I know I will name my character what I want, not what the book tells me is "normal" making all such info worthless to me and a waste of space.If the name doesn't match the racial naming conventions, you annoy everyone else at the table by breaking the setting. Nobody likes the elf named Robert McClanahan, and assumes that he's raised by dwarves if his name is Urist Stonehammer.

And guidance for Catfolk names is how we end up with actual names, instead of cat puns.

captpike

2014-07-13, 02:45 PM

No but most players still use the Default fluff for the creatures. A creature is assumed to be the same as the default fluff unless explicitly changed.

Also the info may be useless to you but not to other people. If you don't want to then don't use one of those names but for other people they are useful. (I remember how you used to say how your ways would make everyone happy. Clearly not)

It's really clear that you don't want an RPG.

becuase I don't play the way you do I don't really "want an RPG"?

the thing with suggested fluff is that it should be used in moderation because its the part of the book that will be used least. you want suggested names? sure a few lines would be good but no reason to spend two paragraphs on it.

My experience with multiple play-by-post, internet, and other games indicate that most players play in a setting 100% compatible with and based on the assumed metasetting. So... yes, yes I do, and my experience matches that.

guess you mostly play on a forum that caters to one setting, or those are the only ones you play if you only see one setting being played.

were that the case then the only setting books that would sell would be the one that is used as the default in the PHB. the fact that several setting books have in fact been sold for other editions and made money shows this is not the case.

Your argument is that your playstyle/approach to setting is in the majority, when everything else indicates otherwise.

no, my argument is that the mythic 4e style has enough people that there is no more reason to ignore them then the 3e players.

If the name doesn't match the racial naming conventions, you annoy everyone else at the table by breaking the setting. Nobody likes the elf named Robert McClanahan, and assumes that he's raised by dwarves if his name is Urist Stonehammer.

And guidance for Catfolk names is how we end up with actual names, instead of cat puns.

here and I thought that making characters was about what you thought was best, not what the other players thought. do you also let them decide your class and race? how about your actions in combat?

if another player's name annoys you then that is your problem not there's.

Sartharina

2014-07-13, 02:50 PM

becuase I don't play the way you do I don't really "want an RPG"?

the thing with suggested fluff is that it should be used in moderation because its the part of the book that will be used least. you want suggested names? sure a few lines would be good but no reason to spend two paragraphs on it.On the contrary, I find the fluff to be used the most. It gives context to everything else. And, suggested names actually are worthless - you need the two paragraphs explaining where the names come from because nobody likes using cookie-cutter names.

captpike

2014-07-13, 02:58 PM

On the contrary, I find the fluff to be used the most. It gives context to everything else. And, suggested names actually are worthless - you need the two paragraphs explaining where the names come from because nobody likes using cookie-cutter names.

some may use the suggested fluff alot, but a large percentage use it not at all. for my players in my setting I could hand them books without any of it and it would not matter.

if they don't like using cookie-cutter names then why would they like being locked into a naming scheme that someone else thought of? how is that different?

rlc

2014-07-13, 03:01 PM

the problem being that this is wasted space for a large percentage of everyone using the book. where as any rules or options are not.

there should be some default fluff, but they need to limit it because its only useful to some people who play the game.
If I'm not going to play in a setting with tons of races, then the extra races are wasted space.
Now, I agree that more races would be awesome, but I don't want them to just be thrown together, like you're suggesting. I also realize that there are also already more races in this phb than in any previous one. I'm okay with that, because I know that there will be more later. If I want to put some of my own together for the time being, it's not hard to do and I've already started doing just that.

sure, its not like its possible for DMs and Players to live in different area's. or for more then one player to want to play such a race and need the book at the same time. or for a player to not even know such options exist.if you don't live near your DM, you're probably playing on the internet, meaning you have even more resources. And if you want to play as a monstrous race, why wouldn't you ask if that's possible? You don't have to already know whether or not it is.

I use the authority that I am in fact human, therefor am capable of reason.

the races in the PDF had alot of useless fluff (why do I need to have suggested fluff on why dwarves have darkvision?) they described rules that were explained elsewhere, doing nothing but cause confusion. they added fluff that was just not needed (why do you need a quarter page on how elf's name's work?)some people enjoy that stuff. You may not, but that doesn't mean anything to the people who do. And nothing in the basic pdf was really confusing if you thought about it for a few seconds. There were a few things that I may have read fast and didn't understand until I read it a second or third time, but that'll happen whenever you read something fast.

Envyus

2014-07-13, 03:03 PM

guess you mostly play on a forum that caters to one setting, or those are the only ones you play if you only see one setting being played.

You don't get it this is in pretty much all the fourms and games. Almost all of them have some of the default fluff in them useually related to creatures. In most games Kobolds will be little arrogant buggers that love dragons. Thats how they are in most games and thats how the default presents them.

The point was that most D&D games are compatible with the default fluff. It's why almost all Dwarfs have the accent.

Captpike you are not the majority. You don't represent the 4e players as well and you need to realize that.

some may use the suggested fluff alot, but a large percentage use it not at all. for my players in my setting I could hand them books without any of it and it would not matter.

Here is your problem. The majority uses the suggested fluff. They may not play in the same setting but they use a great deal of the default fluff. All creatures will be assumed to be the same as they are in the default unless it is stated by the setting. Your group is not a large percentage.

Sartharina

2014-07-13, 03:07 PM

some may use the suggested fluff alot, but a large percentage use it not at all. for my players in my setting I could hand them books without any of it and it would not matter.some may use the suggested fluff not at all, but a large percentage use it alot.

if they don't like using cookie-cutter names then why would they like being locked into a naming scheme that someone else thought of? how is that different?The naming scheme is part of the culture represented in the game. However, you can use the constraints of that naming scheme to create a unique and personalized name for your character - a unique character and expression of you, but grounded in the setting.

captpike

2014-07-13, 03:12 PM

some may use the suggested fluff not at all, but a large percentage use it alot.

The naming scheme is part of the culture represented in the game. However, you can use the constraints of that naming scheme to create a unique and personalized name for your character - a unique character and expression of you, but grounded in the setting.

or I could pick from those names and more by just ignoring the suggesting fluff. also the fact the PCs are special means that even if I am using the suggested fluff there is a not small chance I would have a unique name.

yes but unlike everything else in the game its not 100%. everyone uses the combat rules, everyone who plays a wizard uses the wizard spells and rules.

pwykersotz

2014-07-13, 03:13 PM

Actually, "ae" is just a digraphic representation of the graphme "Æ/æ", which is pronounced with a long E sound. The ae dipthong is usually used in fictional words to make them look more archaic, because words that used to use the dipthong (Dæmon, encyclopædia, etc.) were monopthongized into a simple "e" in the middle ages and later Noah Webster in his dictionary (Or left, as in archaeology, Caesar, Gael, and the like) - but the pronunciation as a long e is the same). It's the big reason I take such irritation that D&D and Pathfinder have "Daemons" and "Demons" be different things - it's two spellings (a conventional and archaic) of the same word and concept.

The "aa" is the dipthong representing the long A sound, and is of dutch and Old English (Rather than Latin) origin.

Huh...learn something new every day. I always wished latin was available to take in my school courses when I was younger. It's probably different etymology, but I always extrapolated it from words like 'Gaelic'.

Lord Raziere

2014-07-13, 03:18 PM

Sartharina

2014-07-13, 03:21 PM

Huh...learn something new every day. I always wished latin was available to take in my school courses when I was younger. It's probably different etymology, but I always extrapolated it from words like 'Gaelic'.

Which is probably a corruption of its original pronunciation (Sort of like Boston Celtics)
or I could pick from those names and more by just ignoring the suggesting fluff. also the fact the PCs are special means that even if I am using the suggested fluff there is a not small chance I would have a unique name.... looking through history and the news, most significant, special, and unique people in the world actually have pretty boring and normal names indicative of the culture they were born in.

yes but unlike everything else in the game its not 100%. everyone uses the combat rules, everyone who plays a wizard uses the wizard spells and rules.People who see the lack of fluff and don't buy the game because it doesn't spark their interest (Because they're more interested in playing with high adventures in a vivid fantasy world than caring about the number crunching) aren't using the combat and spellcasting rules either. 4e lost a LOT of players because of how 'sterile' and fluffless the rulebooks felt.

Squirrel_Dude

2014-07-13, 03:26 PM

Callin

2014-07-13, 03:31 PM

here is a thought: how many people actually like gnomes?

I mean, why have both halflings and gnomes? if we're really arguing against redundant races, why not replace gnomes with something more distinct? like goblins. I'd like that. be able to play a goblin as a core race, instead of a gnome. I mean we have half-orcs and tieflings, so there is precedent...

I like Gnomes. Never played one but I like them. I have played a Goblin though. I dont like Teiflings but I dont have an issue with them being in the book other than no Aasimar. I mean how hard is it to have Planetouched with Tiefling, Aasimar and others as Subraces. Just a few more printed words.

captpike

2014-07-13, 03:35 PM

Which is probably a corruption of its original pronunciation (Sort of like Boston Celtics)... looking through history and the news, most significant, special, and unique people in the world actually have pretty boring and normal names indicative of the culture they were born in.

People who see the lack of fluff and don't buy the game because it doesn't spark their interest (Because they're more interested in playing with high adventures in a vivid fantasy world than caring about the number crunching) aren't using the combat and spellcasting rules either. 4e lost a LOT of players because of how 'sterile' and fluffless the rulebooks felt.

no 4e did not. 4e lost alot of people who did not understand how the game worked, or who say it was not like 3e then left. just like 3e lost alot of players who did the same when coming form 2e.

why are you talking about RL? that is not relevant to D&D in any way.

AND AGAIN for the like fifth time, I did not say you should not have default fluff, just that you should use it in moderation becuase it will be used least of any part of the book. if you want detailed setting info you buy a setting book. if you just want enough to get ideas rolling you look at a PHB

rlc

2014-07-13, 03:45 PM

AND AGAIN for the like fifth time, I did not say you should not have default fluff, just that you should use it in moderation becuase it will be used least of any part of the book. if you want detailed setting info you buy a setting book. if you just want enough to get ideas rolling you look at a PHB

the thing is that my definition of "in moderation" might be different than yours, which might be different than the guy's down the street. i don't think there is too much fluff in the basic pdf at all.

1337 b4k4

2014-07-13, 04:07 PM

...do you honestly think that most players play in the same setting?

I think that most players play in a setting that is at least somewhat compatible with the default fluff. I think the number of DMs who invent their settings and races and fluff entirely from whole cloth and deviate completely from what's in the book is extremely small.

why are you listing the number of people who disagree with me? doing so is meaningless.

When you assert that "the majority" do or do not do something, it is relevant to then begin listing people and on what sides of the issues they fall on. This is how to determine a majority. Yes, anecdotes are not data, but data is an aggregate of anecdotes.

becuase I don't play the way you do I don't really "want an RPG"?

Yes. This has been abundantly clear for a long time. I fact, it has been suggested to you on more than one occasion that perhaps you would be happier with something like GURPS which is a system rather than an RPG. Yet you continue to insist that WotC should fundamentally alter D&D to create an entirely new system in order to satisfy you and some nebulous "majority" that you claim exists and don't want RPGs. Seriously, you have a different way of playing magic elf games that is fundamentally separate from what D&D is, has been and for the foreseeable future will be designed to do. Why do you insist on beating your head against the rock that is D&D rather than do something else and actually play a game you would enjoy?

the thing with suggested fluff is that it should be used in moderation because its the part of the book that will be used least.

Facts not in evidence.

no, my argument is that the mythic 4e style has enough people that there is no more reason to ignore them then the 3e players.

False equivalence. The "mythic" play style is in no way connected to the player preference for or against having default setting. Once again, you are projecting your preferences onto the community as a whole.

here and I thought that making characters was about what you thought was best, not what the other players thought. do you also let them decide your class and race? how about your actions in combat?

The game is a cooperative game with a shared world and setting. If you repeatedly violate that shared experience, you will quickly find yourself without a game. After all, I assume that you actually attack in combat rather than running away. I assume (based on your stated play style preferences) that you choose classes and races that compliment your party. Or are you the type of player that insists that even though the DM and other players have agreed to play a low magic system, that you alone are the sole character in the world that had super magic abilities and that you should be allowed to play a wizard? The nature of cooperative games is subsuming some part of your personal desires and preferences for the good of the game as a whole. Obviously everything is on a scale and having an odd character's name that doesn't fit the setting isn't quite as bad as abandoning your party to go dig in the sand, but if your group wants to go in a certain direction and way and you persist in violating that, it's all the same it's anti-social behavior. If you're playing in a LOTR setting, naming your Gondorian fighter Ford Prefect Slartibartfast for no reason other than "I'm special and that's what I want" is annoying and anti-social, just like playing in Star Trek and naming your vulcan "Cletus "Bubba Shrimp" Jones".

Lord Raziere

2014-07-13, 04:08 PM

Do I love Gnomes? No? Do I ever want to see them leave? No.

So? can you name any difference between them and halflings that can't be explained as halflings but with a different culture? its not about loving em, its about whether or not they're redundant.

Squirrel_Dude

2014-07-13, 04:12 PM

So? can you name any difference between them and halflings that can't be explained as halflings but with a different culture? its not about loving em, its about whether or not they're redundant.Are we assuming natural magical talents regarding illusion and enchantment being unique to cultures or racial heritage. It also depends on how we're defining gnomes. Are they sturdy underground folk that are more capricious than Dwarves, or are they related to fey.

rlc

2014-07-13, 04:14 PM

HeadlessMermaid

2014-07-13, 04:19 PM

So? can you name any difference between them and halflings that can't be explained as halflings but with a different culture? its not about loving em, its about whether or not they're redundant.
They're wacky inventors/engineers, they build contraptions and stuff, and study a lot. I wouldn't put the quest for the Philosopher's Stone in the hands of a halfling or a dwarf. (Well, I could, but gnomes fit better out of the box.)

Gnomes aren't my favourite class, and I can do without them, but I like them and I find them a good choice for the PHB. I also liked their section in "Races of Stone. I don't find them redundant.

Callin

2014-07-13, 04:24 PM

So? can you name any difference between them and halflings that can't be explained as halflings but with a different culture? its not about loving em, its about whether or not they're redundant.

Other than the fact that they each have differing Subraces. Gnome: Rock, Forest, Svirfneblin. Halfling: Stout, Lightfoot, others from older editions that I dont know have progressed (like Hairfoot and Tallfellow).

Gnomes are a settled race living underground but spending time on the surface as well. They tinker and like using Alchemy. They love animals and have magic in their blood that manifests in Illusions and the ability to speak with Animals.

Halfings are either settled or nomadic depending on clan. Prefer the lighter side of life and all the joy it brings. Has a stereotype of Larceny and other Dubious affiliations. Dont usually wear shoes and can skip a stone like you wouldnt believe.

So yea to me they are separate races and not redundant at all. Yes both fill the small race role, but they do it differently.

akaddk

2014-07-13, 04:40 PM

The game is a cooperative game with a shared world and setting. If you repeatedly violate that shared experience, you will quickly find yourself without a game. After all, I assume that you actually attack in combat rather than running away. I assume (based on your stated play style preferences) that you choose classes and races that compliment your party. Or are you the type of player that insists that even though the DM and other players have agreed to play a low magic system, that you alone are the sole character in the world that had super magic abilities and that you should be allowed to play a wizard? The nature of cooperative games is subsuming some part of your personal desires and preferences for the good of the game as a whole. Obviously everything is on a scale and having an odd character's name that doesn't fit the setting isn't quite as bad as abandoning your party to go dig in the sand, but if your group wants to go in a certain direction and way and you persist in violating that, it's all the same it's anti-social behavior. If you're playing in a LOTR setting, naming your Gondorian fighter Ford Prefect Slartibartfast for no reason other than "I'm special and that's what I want" is annoying and anti-social, just like playing in Star Trek and naming your vulcan "Cletus "Bubba Shrimp" Jones".
I've always found it odd that this even has to be explained to some people, especially ones who are over twenty years old. And yet it is a constant frustration of mine when dealing with new groups. Everyone wants to be the special snowflake and insists on it to the point of interrupting game time and group harmony. And further they do so not only before the game but they commit the far worse offence of playing such disruptive characters during the game. It's the rarest groups where at least one person isn't like this and, strangely enough, it's the groups without those types where I've not only had the best games but also the longest running groups. Whod'a thunk it?

Arzanyos

2014-07-13, 05:29 PM

T.G. Oskar

2014-07-13, 05:33 PM

You don't get it this is in pretty much all the fourms and games. Almost all of them have some of the default fluff in them useually related to creatures. In most games Kobolds will be little arrogant buggers that love dragons. Thats how they are in most games and thats how the default presents them.

The point was that most D&D games are compatible with the default fluff.

I presume the first bolded part of the quote corresponds to the second, right? Minor nitpick, but when I read this, the first thing that came to mind is "Kobolds in Suikoden aren't dragon-lovers, they're cute dog-like beings!" Then I thought "well, in most D&D games, that is true".

But it definitely hammers the point. If what you have is a name and a set of mechanics with no solid amount of fluff, people will imagine things differently. Case in point: Kobolds. Most people think of *cobolds* as fey sprites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobold) or hairy dog-like mischievous creatures (Suikoden, Ragnarok Online). It might take people by surprise to see Kobolds in D&D are actually more related to reptiles than to mammals, or that their acclaimed heritage is draconic rather than fey. Without this, you could say "well, it fits some of the kobold myth thing, but I don't understand why they can't turn into candles" or "why do they speak Draconic? Why not Sylvan, or Dog?". Thus, fluff is important.

That some races are so popular that they need little to no fluff is entirely possible. Even then, some things can change. For example: the game Class of Heroes has Dwarves (http://www.atlus.com/classofheroes/images/dwarf.png)being long-eared dog-like creatures, and Gnomes (http://e-shuushuu.net/images/2009-01-31-140656.png)are tall, teal-haired, occasionally levitating constructs (I kid you not). Classic Gnomes fall into fey-like beings (and most likely where the adjunct myth of Santa's "elves" comes from), but for those who study Chemistry or know a bit about Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim (aka Paracelsus), Gnome is one of the four Elementals, namely the Elemental of Earth. I don't like the idea of Gnomes as part of the fae, so if for some reason I was to make an RPG, I'd definitely ramp up their elemental heritage one way or another (perhaps an elemental-blooded humanoid, akin to the Genasi, perhaps tying their behavior to the Four Humours theory). However, the mechanics won't EVER reflect that, so I can't work with such a massive refluff without recrunching the mechanics to fit (i.e. make a new pie out of the Gnome). Any fluff I make has to fit the mechanics, but without a default fluff, I can't build suitable mechanics.

here is a thought: how many people actually like gnomes?

I mean, why have both halflings and gnomes? if we're really arguing against redundant races, why not replace gnomes with something more distinct? like goblins. I'd like that. be able to play a goblin as a core race, instead of a gnome. I mean we have half-orcs and tieflings, so there is precedent...

I like Gnomes. In fact, I like them more than Halflings do when small sizes come in. I've played at least two Gnomes in my life (one a Bard in a campaign about 8-9 years ago, another a Beguiler in a recent campaign). I am more than ecstatic for the way Gnomes were portrayed in Eberron, particularly because of what's behind the norm of Zilargo. I'm getting a bit tired of fey portrayals, and saturated from tinker portrayals (I don't mind Tinker Gnomes, but they're getting to be too populous, particularly on the area of Goldberg contraptions), but nonetheless I'd chose a Gnome over a Halfling every day. If I have to play a small creature, that is.

Rather than Gnome OR Goblin, why not Gnome AND Goblin AND Kobold? Give some love to small races. Might as well give it to one or two Large races as well.

RustyArmor

2014-07-13, 05:47 PM

Rather than Gnome OR Goblin, why not Gnome AND Goblin AND Kobold? Give some love to small races. Might as well give it to one or two Large races as well.

Have to agree for most part, as much as I HATE halflings (To me they were farming hobbits in 2nd ed, most dislike them so 3rd ed turned them into kenders with far less kleptomania habits because so many like kender which make me disliked them even more so) and kobolds (I liked the old school dog like ones and feel they had to make them mini half dragons to get some fans which I disliked greatly). But I would like to see more small races even if they have to make up new ones. I'm not a fan of large races but they should have one or two like golith (sp?) and minotaur or such.

And I also feel they should sum up all the animal races into one bunch, call them animal folk or whatever and have the subraces be mammal, reptile, avian, etc.

Envyus

2014-07-13, 06:14 PM

I presume the first bolded part of the quote corresponds to the second, right? Minor nitpick, but when I read this, the first thing that came to mind is "Kobolds in Suikoden aren't dragon-lovers, they're cute dog-like beings!" Then I thought "well, in most D&D games, that is true".

Yeah when I said most games I mean most D&D games.

captpike

2014-07-13, 08:09 PM

Hey captpike, one of your statements really stood out to me. I believe you said "What if in my world hobs were scholars and known for their love of peace?" How would you flesh out that concept, since it is so far removed from the default flavor of hobgoblins. I mean, it's hard enough for me to work out the specifics of Fantasy Hawaiian Hobgoblins, and at their core, those aren't much different from the standard.

So captpike, I want to know, how would peaceloving scholar hobgoblins work? Specifics would be appreciated. You may find this a bit pointless, but indulge me.

hmm first I would say that in hobs pre-history they were very violent and aggressive, because of their great ability to work together they dominated every nation nearby. soon however every nearby nation banded together and fought them back. after a war that lasted decades a truce was reached.
for the first time in their history the leaders were not the most aggressive of their kind. they realized that they had to curtail their peoples more violent nature or they would all die.
so they started to emphasize more academic pursuits, at first couching this as a way to learn more about the enemy and to try and get more spellcasters and such. all the while turning the competitiveness that almost doomed their people into a desire to learn more and to be respected for your intelligence and thoroughness.
it took alot of time, but they changed into a race that prized a keen intellect more then anything, that considers learning and education to be something you do until the day you die.

fighting for anything other then self defenses is considered the sign you are not capable for the concentration needed to learn and do real work. it is a mark of shame that will follow a hob until the day he dies.