What's with WotC avoiding Class bloat but not Race bloat?

[heavyfuel]

Since the dawn of 5e, WotC made it clear that they wanted to avoid the class bloat that 3e suffered from. This makes sense as 3e had about 70 Base Classes, plus about 700 Prestige Classes (basically a class that you could only enter after a certain level and only with some pre-requisites).

They are so against the idea of new classes that they were even going to make the Artificer a Wizard subclass before they came to their senses! In 8 years, they added exactly one class to the roster.

This isn't a bad thing. Keeping the number of classes low simplifies the game, which seems to be the intent.

However, why are Races treated in a completely different manner? WotC can't seem to get enough new races!

And now, it looks like we're getting even more races with some of some subraces decoupling from the base race.

Again, not a bad thing. Just seems weird to keep such a tight grip on the number of playable classes, but go completely crazy with the number of playable races.

[DeadMech]

It takes almost no effort to make a race compared to a class.

[Sparky McDibben]

It's easier to create, and it's easier for DMs to justify excluding them if the mechanics suck.

[Ganryu]

I'm with you. I've turned to homebrew alot of the time, people like KibblesTasty who do good work. {Inventor, Psion, Warlord, Occultist}.

It's a case of, once you've played all the classes, then what? Gets a bit boring.

They've only psuedo accepted Mercer's class: Bloodhunter in a sort of weird limbo of almost a class, recognized by WoC, but not an official class. Why not? It's a bit weak if anything.

[Willie the Duck]

For all the gnashing of teeth over this flying race or that race with spell resistance or whatnot, the overall ground covered by races, rulewise, isn't as great as what classes cover. This means there's a greater continuity in what the gameplay looks like (greater, not complete, of course), and people just coming into the game have less feeling like they have to understand (and have purchased) it all at once, etc.

Also, you can only play one race at a time, so there's less risk of massively-multiple interaction issues (no 3-race pileups like you have with, say, the cha-based classes in 5e or some of the multi-prestige class insanity builds from 3e).

[Mastikator]

Step 1) Make race of antagonistic sapient creatures that lazy DMs can throw at players without thinking "why are they attacking".

Step 2) Someone sympathizes with sapient race or questions "how are they not extinct if they're this self destructive and evil", so someone has to come up with exceptions to the "always evil"

Step 3) Someone wants to play the sapient evil race as a non-evil option

Step 4) Lazy DM throws sapient evil race at party with non-evil version of said race, party tries to find peaceful solution.

Step 5) Lazy DM has to find/make new race to throw at party

It's no wonder there are more "monster" and "exotic" races than normal races available. (also how the f are tieflings and dragonborn not exotic?)

[Ralanr]

Races are easier to design over classes.

It's better than the only player bloat being more spells.

[Dork_Forge]

1) It's quicker and easier to crank out races

2) The effect on balance of any given class is huge, and hard to measure given how many plates you need to spin. You not only need to consider how it interacts with itself and races, but also feats and multiclassing. And whilst they say those things are optional, that doesn't mean this don't have to/shouldn't have to put the work in

I'm not really sure what entire classes are even needed, maybe this is just me only being exposed to 5e, but the only real hole to fill seems to be a full Psionic class.

[JackPhoenix]

It takes almost no effort to make a race compared to a class.

And even that seems to be too much effort for WotC the way things are going lately with everything being changed to be more bland and same-y.

[Ganryu]

1) It's quicker and easier to crank out races

2) The effect on balance of any given class is huge, and hard to measure given how many plates you need to spin. You not only need to consider how it interacts with itself and races, but also feats and multiclassing. And whilst they say those things are optional, that doesn't mean this don't have to/shouldn't have to put the work in

I'm not really sure what entire classes are even needed, maybe this is just me only being exposed to 5e, but the only real hole to fill seems to be a full Psionic class.

I mean, psionic, reaction based martial, martial version of bard {warlord}, all come off top of my head.

Ambush or trap master would also be nice, you know, an ACTUAL RANGER! Let them have herbs on hand, heal without magic, set up traps, ambush people from shadows, be a ranger! None of this 'not quite fighter, rogue, or druid' bit!
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/768/530/5da.gif

I've made a planar mage before as well for homebrew, it's working decently well.

[Ortho]

Since the dawn of 5e, WotC made it clear that they wanted to avoid the class bloat that 3e suffered from. This makes sense as 3e had about 70 Base Classes, plus about 700 Prestige Classes (basically a class that you could only enter after a certain level and only with some pre-requisites).

They are so against the idea of new classes that they were even going to make the Artificer a Wizard subclass before they came to their senses! In 8 years, they added exactly one class to the roster.

This isn't a bad thing. Keeping the number of classes low simplifies the game, which seems to be the intent.

However, why are Races treated in a completely different manner? WotC can't seem to get enough new races!

And now, it looks like we're getting even more races with some of some subraces decoupling from the base race.

Again, not a bad thing. Just seems weird to keep such a tight grip on the number of playable classes, but go completely crazy with the number of playable races.

We're comparing apples and oranges here. Races and classes are on completely different levels.

Here's a thought experiment: make a D&D character whose race is irrelevant. Now make a D&D character whose class is irrelevant. I think you'll find that the latter is significantly harder than the former.

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

The newly announced racial changes seem designed exactly to mitigate this: races now only need to be balanced by their proficiencies, spells or other special abilities.

Now Dex buffing races and AI races aren’t automatic gold and won’t eclipse similar side packages that buff weaker stats.

Races are now different based on their special abilities, most which are more universally applicable (a fighter can still use a cantrip or fairy fire, a wizard can still benefit from armour or an HP buff), rather than a stat package that favours a small range of classes

[KOLE]

Here's a thought experiment: make a D&D character whose race is irrelevant. Now make a D&D character whose class is irrelevant. I think you'll find that the latter is significantly harder than the former.

That’s… A really good way of putting it. A cookie for your succinctness.

I could play a +1/+1 floating ASI amorphous blob sized medium humanoid with 30 feet of movement and no other traits other than speaking common and actually do okay, all things considered.

[KOLE]

Races are now different based on their special abilities, most which are more universally applicable (a fighter can still use a cantrip or fairy fire, a wizard can still benefit from armour or an HP buff), rather than a stat package that favours a small range of classes

This is actually the best argument I’ve seen in favor of what some folks are calling “the 5.25 tweak”. And that’s coming from someone who’s not really in favor of it (though not as staunchly as some others in this forum). Well put!

[Dork_Forge]

I mean, psionic, reaction based martial, martial version of bard {warlord}, all come off top of my head.

Ambush or trap master would also be nice, you know, an ACTUAL RANGER! Let them have herbs on hand, heal without magic, set up traps, ambush people from shadows, be a ranger! None of this 'not quite fighter, rogue, or druid' bit!

I've made a planar mage before as well for homebrew, it's working decently well.

Being a true psion requires actual support right now, but I don't see how those other things necessarily need an entire class:

-Reactions are too limited to build a class around them, the Cavalier already strides into this territory to do some degree.

- When you describe it as a martial bard, that really seems like it could fit in a subclass. It's literally just an improved Banneret

For something to warrant an entire class, it would need to require a huge amount of mechanical support to realise without being feat heavy. I think jumping on every character concept as it's only realised class is exactly how class bloat happens.

Some stuff you just have to compromise with certain spells/feats/other options and any refluffing, there can't be everything and to a very real degree less is more.

[KorvinStarmast]

Races are easier to design over classes.

It's better than the only player bloat being more spells. Bloat isn't good and it's a disappointment that bloat is casually inflicted.


Step 3) Someone wants to play the sapient evil race as a non-evil option how original (wait, no it's not).

We're comparing apples and oranges here. Races and classes are on completely different levels.

Here's a thought experiment: make a D&D character whose race is irrelevant. Now make a D&D character whose class is irrelevant. I think you'll find that the latter is significantly harder than the former.
Nice post.

[Ganryu]

Being a true psion requires actual support right now, but I don't see how those other things necessarily need an entire class:

-Reactions are too limited to build a class around them, the Cavalier already strides into this territory to do some degree.

- When you describe it as a martial bard, that really seems like it could fit in a subclass. It's literally just an improved Banneret

For something to warrant an entire class, it would need to require a huge amount of mechanical support to realise without being feat heavy. I think jumping on every character concept as it's only realised class is exactly how class bloat happens.

Some stuff you just have to compromise with certain spells/feats/other options and any refluffing, there can't be everything and to a very real degree less is more.
You can make a better monk as a fighter, or barbarian too, but there's a certain amount of flavor with the abilities. Half the time, my party doesn't know what I'm playing, because I can build classes any way I like with RAW with a little imagination, and the rest is flavor. I can almost build a paladin with fighter 11/cleric 9, but no one is going to want to get rid of a paladin.


Technically, you could have fighter, bard, and wizard, and you've got everything covered and don't need more classes. You have martial who hits stuff, wizard's bs spells, and healing & skill monkey in bard. What, really, is there otherwise? We have 13 classes.


As far as reaction based class, it's pretty well possible. For example, one homebrew is The Savant, which is based around reactions. Just one of many reaction based HB.
https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-M0ZVK6ndhFyImQPF_aJ


Warlord, not quite a fighter. It's about commanding allies and buffing them for being nearby. There are few takes on this, apparently a popular class from 3.5 called the marshal. It's about giving bonus to teammates without being magical. Imagine a paladin's aura, but that was the entire class, giving up smites and spell casting and nova damage, but everyone around you gets benefits. One HB of this.
https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-LW4agTNJcbwe6kSv4H2


They are both unique and bring a flavor that takes difficulty using vanilla Dnd, which, I think is enough to build a class around. Homebrewing is hard, don't trust 80% of it, but it does give good ideas at the very least. Artificer proved, even if albeit badly, wizards CAN add more classes to the game. Twilight cleric proved that apparently being busted isn't enough to stop it getting into Dnd :eyeroll:. {That may have been my breaking point for reaching outside of official material.}

[P. G. Macer]

I'm with you. I've turned to homebrew alot of the time, people like KibblesTasty who do good work. {Inventor, Psion, Warlord, Occultist}.

It's a case of, once you've played all the classes, then what? Gets a bit boring.

They've only psuedo accepted Mercer's class: Bloodhunter in a sort of weird limbo of almost a class, recognized by WoC, but not an official class. Why not? It's a bit weak if anything.

Blood hunter has not been recognized by WotC; it has been recognized by D&D Beyond, which Wizards of the Coast does not run or own, and never has.

[Kane0]

I'm with you. I've turned to homebrew alot of the time, people like KibblesTasty who do good work. {Inventor, Psion, Warlord, Occultist}.


Ooh, thats a good few days worth of reading you have provided there.

[Leon]

They way they are heading they only need one generic race and a drop table of pick a bonus racial feature and apply your free floating stat to X class stat

[HPisBS]

They way they are heading they only need one generic race and a drop table of pick a bonus racial feature and apply your free floating stat to X class stat

Considering the topic of that other thread currently at its 6th page, I can't really argue with you....

[Waazraath]

I do think it's slowly becoming a bad thing, at least for me. Given the lifetime of 5e, I'd be more content if the edition has less new race and spell options, and more feats, totems, fighting styles, maneuvers, alternative class features, and even a few extra classes.

[Lunali]

At least with race bloat you still have each character only using the rules for a single race. With class bloat you would have to consider not only how to balance each class, but how they potentially interact with every other class.

[heavyfuel]

Some general thoughts to the responses thus far:

@"It's easier to churn out races": True, but it doesn't explain why they were so against the idea of using new classes to sell splat books, but are fine with using new races. And also, it's not like creating a new class is especially difficult. It's more difficult than a race, sure, but not super difficult.

@"Race isn't as important to your character as class": Again, true, but it's the same case as the above. Plus, it's only true for the mechanics of the game, not for the actual Role Playing part of the Role Playing Game.

@"Races don't have to worry about multiclass": Now that multiclass and feats are explicitly optional rules, I fail to see how that's an issue. If a DM thinks a multiclass combo is too powerful, they can just say no and point to the PHB where it says you must check with the DM first.

@"They should introduce new classes": No arguments here. After 8 years, I do think 5e is getting stale with lack of new options. Subclasses can only do so much when 80% of your character is a rehash of a previous one.

[Contrast]

They've only psuedo accepted Mercer's class: Bloodhunter in a sort of weird limbo of almost a class, recognized by WoC, but not an official class. Why not? It's a bit weak if anything.


Blood hunter has not been recognized by WotC; it has been recognized by D&D Beyond, which Wizards of the Coast does not run or own, and never has.

Both the Blood Hunter, Gunslinger Fighter and Cobalt Soul Monk are on D&D Beyond because D&D Beyond sponsors/advertises using Critical Role and those classes have been played by someone on Critical Role. Mercer has other homebrew that hasn't made it to D&D Beyond because no-one on the show has played it. They come on D&D Beyond with a large warning in red letters saying 'THIS IS UNOFFICIAL MATERIAL'.

As has been said, their presense on D&D Beyond is pretty much entirely unrelated to how 'official' WotC deems them.

[KorvinStarmast]

Given the lifetime of 5e, I'd be more content if the edition has less new race and spell options, and more feats, totems, fighting styles, maneuvers, alternative class features, and even a few extra classes. No extra classes, please. Maybe some new sub classes.

At least with race bloat you still have each character only using the rules for a single race. With class bloat you would have to consider not only how to balance each class, but how they potentially interact with every other class. Spot on.

@"They should introduce new classes": No arguments here. After 8 years, I do think 5e is getting stale with lack of new options. Subclasses can only do so much when 80% of your character is a rehash of a previous one. Disagree. We don't need new classes.

[Willie the Duck]

Some general thoughts to the responses thus far:

@"It's easier to churn out races": True, but it doesn't explain why they were so against the idea of using new classes to sell splat books, but are fine with using new races. And also, it's not like creating a new class is especially difficult. It's more difficult than a race, sure, but not super difficult.

Difficulty in writing the thing is probably not the big issue. Keeping tabs on what a game of D&D looks like (both for the designers themselves, and someone coming into the game for the first time) as you start adding classes probably has more to do with it.


@"Race isn't as important to your character as class": Again, true, but it's the same case as the above. Plus, it's only true for the mechanics of the game, not for the actual Role Playing part of the Role Playing Game.
Same speculation as above. As for the RP part, I don't think that's seen as a problem. Giving groups more RP hooks is an efficient way of increasing re-playability without having to deal with potential rules-interaction issues. In no small part because the groups themselves will tend to do a lot of heavy lifting in terms of making it work for themselves.


@"Races don't have to worry about multiclass": Now that multiclass and feats are explicitly optional rules, I fail to see how that's an issue. If a DM thinks a multiclass combo is too powerful, they can just say no and point to the PHB where it says you must check with the DM first.
'DM can just say no' is a universal, not limited to things expressly denoted as optional. Regardless, for all the nice clean optional tags on those rules, I think many to most groups do play with those rules. Regardless regardless, optional or not, WotC probably doesn't have a grand incentive to making a lot of too-powerful combos (well, above what they already have) for those people who do use those optional rules.


@"They should introduce new classes": No arguments here. After 8 years, I do think 5e is getting stale with lack of new options. Subclasses can only do so much when 80% of your character is a rehash of a previous one.
Boy, I'm of two minds on this. On one hand, every other Dragon magazine used to come out with a couple of extra new classes and the game worked fine*. On the other hand, I don't see new classes, in particular, solving the issue of a certain subset of gamers needing new mechanical options to stay interested.
*Although it should be noted that, in the 1E period of which I am thinking, if you didn't buy Dragon, there was something like only one (Unearthed Arcana) introduction of new classes in a dozen-year run of the game and that also worked fine.

[Pildion]

Since the dawn of 5e, WotC made it clear that they wanted to avoid the class bloat that 3e suffered from. This makes sense as 3e had about 70 Base Classes, plus about 700 Prestige Classes (basically a class that you could only enter after a certain level and only with some pre-requisites).

They are so against the idea of new classes that they were even going to make the Artificer a Wizard subclass before they came to their senses! In 8 years, they added exactly one class to the roster.

This isn't a bad thing. Keeping the number of classes low simplifies the game, which seems to be the intent.

However, why are Races treated in a completely different manner? WotC can't seem to get enough new races!

And now, it looks like we're getting even more races with some of some subraces decoupling from the base race.

Again, not a bad thing. Just seems weird to keep such a tight grip on the number of playable classes, but go completely crazy with the number of playable races.

It's much easier to make a Race, and balance that. Though even that is gone now, the races are getting overhauled and will just be a skin over what ever ability choices you choose.

[Luccan]

This got kinda rambly, so tl;dr is that most people want to play races outside the default more than they want to play classes outside the default, many previous classes can be collapsed into a subclass, and future classes have to be narrow enough to not feel incomplete when released but wide enough to be expanded upon in the future.

You can play D&D without an Artificer and no one will complain unless you're specifically playing Eberron. You can't play D&D without orcs. You can play D&D without Psionics and unless you're playing Dark Sun no one will complain. You can't play D&D without Gith. And you can have Artificer without Psion (and vice-versa) but you can't have Tiefling without Aasimar and Genasi

That's a generalization so it's not universally true, of course. People will complain, you can play D&D without orcs. But I think the list of "this must be playable or it isn't D&D" is bigger for races than classes for most people. And unlike 3e, there's not an easy conversion between monsters and PCs, so WOTC has to fulfill the "bonus" race allotment before even doing their own thing. And then when they do a custom setting like Eberron or Ravnica they might have to add a class or a couple subclasses, but they also need to add multiple races or else it won't "feel right" to play in those settings. So, you get race bloat.

Additionally, a lot of once independent classes now slot comfortably into subclass territory. Artificer Wizard would've been too much, I agree, but I can also see where the designers were coming from. We certainly don't need Samurai, Cavaliers, Swashbucklers, Assassins, Anti-Paladins, and Blackguards to all be independent of existing classes they already slot nicely into. And subclasses also create another issue.

Based on what they've done so far, they're not gonna release a class they can't think of at least two subclasses for. I also doubt they're going to release a new class that initially has more than 3 or 4 subclasses to avoid overwhelming players on the new class. So you have to have a concept you can cover most of the basics of in less than 5 subclasses, but that isn't so narrow you can't get at least 2 subclasses out of it. And let's be honest, they'll want to be able to release more subclasses, so it does still have to be expandable. Most people selling a 3rd party Psion class (some of which are very nice) aren't expected to be able to sell future books to people who want Psion options.

[CIDE]

It's largely been touched on in some way or another but it comes down to the overall size of the system. Adding new races doesn't really add or change anything for the mechanics of the game. It's a splash of more variety and, depending on which route you go, a little bit of fluff options. To expand classes past a certain point you're going to have to likely introduce entirely new game mechanics to make it work since there's only so many variations you can get out of the class templates we already have available that could both feel unique and balanced.

To use some 3.5 classes as an example, the Dragonfire Adept, Binder, and the Truenamer. The first one would be an easy port since it could likely just be baked in as a dragon-themed Warlock subclass. If done right it would feel true to its 3.5 source, could be balanced, doesn't break or change the Warlock class any more than any other subclass, and doesn't change the way 5e would have to work or introduce anything new.

Binder and Truenamer probably wouldn't check off all of those boxes. Both of them would likely have to introduce entirely new mechanics to the system in order to feel true to their source material. Also, the Binder heavily steps on the toes of the Warlock fluff for 5e inevitably making either one redundant in the long run. It would take a lot of effort to try to include the Binder in a way where it would just be pure bloat. The truenamer doesn't mess with any fluff but there's no built in feature for 5e that can be used to build the class around and still make it feel true to source. It likely wouldn't do anything that the Wizard isn't already doing either.

The list could go on with a lot of martial classes. Stuff that may have been a separate base class or a PrC in 3.5 is taken up by a sublcass spot. So, instead of 30 different classes that are essentially a Fighter+, we get a Fighter+ from the start. Or the numerous "Paladin but not" classes from 3.5 that just become a subclass.

The system is nice and streamlined. Far from perfect, but much easier to digest. There are still some classes I'd love to see make a come back and some get a revision but you take what you can with a system like 5e.

[KorvinStarmast]

They are so against the idea of new classes that they were even going to make the Artificer a Wizard subclass They should have left it that way. :smalltongue: (yes, opinions differ on this)

[PhoenixPhyre]

As someone who's done my fair share of homebrew classes (most of which have never seen the light of day), there's not actually much thematic room left. And the mechanical room
a) is tightly pigeonholed
b) ends up being super fiddly (all the implementations of incarnum, 90% of most homebrew, mine included)
c) and/or requires substantial new subsystems to make it work.

New subsystems are basically required to expand mechanically...but new subsystems also increase the support load tremendously going forward. For instance, if every martial has some sort of maneuvers (but that are class-specific), you either need to commit to adding more of those going forward...or let the class languish. But publishing new elements like that has a very limited reach (people playing that one class) for a huge amount of print space required (there's lots of boilerplate involved that takes up space).

Spells and feats are "general purpose" and independent of both each other and of the classes, so they're less prone to this--one spell on 3 lists only requires one spell entry and 3 lines in the class lists. But that makes for generic elements that don't play nicely (thematically or mechanically) with anybody but spell-casters.

4e had this bad--the Shadow power source (Assassin, Vampire) classes didn't have the feat, item, or paragon path support they needed to actually be useful. So they were basically ignored trap options.

[CIDE]

They should have left it that way. :smalltongue: (yes, opinions differ on this)

The finished product still doesn't even feel like an Artificer to me (more like an improved Techsmith or PF Alchemist) and the Artificer as a Wizard subclass felt even less like an artificer than that.

Not that any of them are bad classes and while I didn't get to play the Wizard version it did seem fun.

[Psyren]

I love the 5e Artificer. It's a lot more streamlined compared to the 3.5 one, and while it doesn't rise to the sheer power of a full caster I don't think that's a bad thing. It's nice to have another class that can prioritize maxing out Int and still be combat effective, plus the party loremonkey, trapmonkey etc.

I definitely do think it needs to be its own class as opposed to a subclass of Wizard etc. As its 4 subclasses prove, there's enough design space within the concept that it can carry a class on its own. Too much in my opinion to make it a subclass of something else, especially once you factor in Infusions.

I did make a thread recently, collecting ideas for expanding the casting to 9th level (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?641066-Making-the-Artificer-a-Full-Caster) without overpowering them relative to the other full casters. So that's an option if you want them to feel more "caster-y" but also find the UA Wizard subclass dissatisfying in some way.

[loki_ragnarock]

As someone who's done my fair share of homebrew classes (most of which have never seen the light of day), there's not actually much thematic room left. And the mechanical room
a) is tightly pigeonholed
b) ends up being super fiddly (all the implementations of incarnum, 90% of most homebrew, mine included)
c) and/or requires substantial new subsystems to make it work.

New subsystems are basically required to expand mechanically...but new subsystems also increase the support load tremendously going forward. For instance, if every martial has some sort of maneuvers (but that are class-specific), you either need to commit to adding more of those going forward...or let the class languish. But publishing new elements like that has a very limited reach (people playing that one class) for a huge amount of print space required (there's lots of boilerplate involved that takes up space).


They seem to be most comfortable introducing new subsystems in the setting books.

Which, honestly, seems like the best place for that sort of thing. They just did a similar but different enough to be legally distinct Harry Potter clone. Here's hoping the next thing is kung-fu themed so that "every martial has maneuvers" thing can come to pass.

[Psyren]

They seem to be most comfortable introducing new subsystems in the setting books.

Which, honestly, seems like the best place for that sort of thing. They just did a similar but different enough to be legally distinct Harry Potter clone. Here's hoping the next thing is kung-fu themed so that "every martial has maneuvers" thing can come to pass.

Ooh, that's not a bad idea at all. They won't call it "Oriental Adventures" of course, but...

[HPisBS]

They seem to be most comfortable introducing new subsystems in the setting books.

Which, honestly, seems like the best place for that sort of thing. They just did a similar but different enough to be legally distinct Harry Potter clone. Here's hoping the next thing is kung-fu themed so that "every martial has maneuvers" thing can come to pass.

Idk what you're referencing, but I'd definitely be down for whatever gets us an official martial revamp (assuming they don't putz it up somehow, of course).

-- Especially if it tied in to "Martial Arts" somehow. (And I don't mean just bumping up the Monk's damage die, though I certainly wouldn't complain about that happening, too.)


Edit:
For that matter, I'd probably like an extra condition or two to be added to the game -- something like Dazed, or maybe Off-Balance that is easier to apply (at least for certain martials) but that quickly wears off and is just more minor overall. Maybe disadvantage only on the next attack or check, or any check or save to avoid forced movement or being knocked prone is made at disadvantage. Something like that.

[PhoenixPhyre]

They seem to be most comfortable introducing new subsystems in the setting books.

Which, honestly, seems like the best place for that sort of thing. They just did a similar but different enough to be legally distinct Harry Potter clone. Here's hoping the next thing is kung-fu themed so that "every martial has maneuvers" thing can come to pass.

From what I understand, most of those have been general access ones (like strixhaven's colleges or the gods favors from the Greek myth one). I was talking about class specific subsystems, like maneuvers, vestiges, incarnum, etc. Those have been much fewer and further between, and tend to boil down to "you can cast (spell) now".

[Dork_Forge]

You can make a better monk as a fighter, or barbarian too, but there's a certain amount of flavor with the abilities. Half the time, my party doesn't know what I'm playing, because I can build classes any way I like with RAW with a little imagination, and the rest is flavor. I can almost build a paladin with fighter 11/cleric 9, but no one is going to want to get rid of a paladin.

Technically, you could have fighter, bard, and wizard, and you've got everything covered and don't need more classes. You have martial who hits stuff, wizard's bs spells, and healing & skill monkey in bard. What, really, is there otherwise? We have 13 classes.

I didn't make a reductionist argument (we shouldn't go back to three or four classes), but the opposite end of that logic isn't that every concept needs to be explored as a class. Could you not only fill an entire class, and multiple subclasses, with a Warlord but also have mechanical and thematic space left to support them ongoingly? Because I'm not seeing it. I can kind of see justification for a class, but it starts to struggle at multiple subclasses initially and certainly going forwards.

To look at your examples:

-How can you make a better Monk as a Fighter? How are you shoehorning all of the defining features into a subclass template?

Or is this a claim that you can do that RAW? Taking Unarmed Fighting doesn't make you a Monk and, I'm assuming the intended direction of, taking Battle Master doesn't change that.

-Presenting a 20th level split doesn't make an argument for the Paladin not existing, especially when you're not advancing both aspects of the character at the same time and losing design space to redundant aspects like proficiencies.




As far as reaction based class, it's pretty well possible. For example, one homebrew is The Savant, which is based around reactions. Just one of many reaction based HB.
https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-M0ZVK6ndhFyImQPF_aJ

Based around reactions? It doesn't even get a new use for its reaction until 5th level. How is a class based on something that doesn't start to emerge until a quarter of the way through its progression? And then the subsequent two features at 7th and 9th level have nothing to do with reactions at all?

It's a class that incorporates reactions into what it does, but it is by no stretch defined by that. It just looks like someone wanted to make a hybrid of the Inquisitive and Mastermind concepts.

And to be honest, breaking established action economy in a way that is ripe for abuse does not sound like something that should exist, nevermind have an entire class paving the way for it.


Warlord, not quite a fighter. It's about commanding allies and buffing them for being nearby. There are few takes on this, apparently a popular class from 3.5 called the marshal. It's about giving bonus to teammates without being magical. Imagine a paladin's aura, but that was the entire class, giving up smites and spell casting and nova damage, but everyone around you gets benefits. One HB of this.
https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-LW4agTNJcbwe6kSv4H2

Sacrificing your own attacks and a dicepool to fuel stuff? That sounds exactly like the kind of thing that already exists in the game as subclasses. I mean reading what those Leadership Dice fuel it just looks like Battle Master maneuvers slammed together and one of them is just the Mastermind Rogues ability.

So... why can't that fit into a subclass? They still get Extra Attack despite not being cut out to use it well, so it's not like that part of the Fighter is a problem and I doubt the Experise's granted are what makes or breaks this.


They are both unique and bring a flavor that takes difficulty using vanilla Dnd, which, I think is enough to build a class around. Homebrewing is hard, don't trust 80% of it, but it does give good ideas at the very least. Artificer proved, even if albeit badly, wizards CAN add more classes to the game. Twilight cleric proved that apparently being busted isn't enough to stop it getting into Dnd :eyeroll:. {That may have been my breaking point for reaching outside of official material.}


That flavour takes work with what is already published, that doesn't mean that it warrants an entire class. And even if you wanted to do it with stock D&D options I don't see how you're not getting there with a Banneret/Mastermind mix with Superior Technique and Martial Adept.

You seem to be inferring that the Artificer is bad, I hold the opposite opinion of it's actually designed near perfectly, interesting and competitive without being OP and it does what it's meant to: make magical stuff and use magical stuff.

Throwing out a class for every concept like this is exactly how you end up with the bloat older editions are infamous for.


The finished product still doesn't even feel like an Artificer to me (more like an improved Techsmith or PF Alchemist) and the Artificer as a Wizard subclass felt even less like an artificer than that.


So what feels like an Artificer to you? What conceptual space is it not hitting?



Which, honestly, seems like the best place for that sort of thing. They just did a similar but different enough to be legally distinct Harry Potter clone. Here's hoping the next thing is kung-fu themed so that "every martial has maneuvers" thing can come to pass.

JK Rowling neither invented the concept of a magical school, nor owns any rights to anything but the school she created.

Magical schools are natural extensions of worlds where magic exists, actually providing support for that mechanically is not a HP clone and Strixhaven has nothing in common with Hogwarts apart from being 'a magical school.'

[False God]

IMO: a race takes much less effort and provides more more to the game than another ultra-niche class.

[Grod_The_Giant]

People griped about class bloat; no-one really talked about race bloat.

Pretty sure that's at least 50% of it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

People griped about class bloat; no-one really talked about race bloat.

Pretty sure that's at least 50% of it.

I've complained about both, so...:smalltongue:

I'd not mind at all if race bloat were setting-specific. You want 52 kinds of elves[1]? Ok, make a setting where that makes sense. Don't bloat the core game with that. Races, for me, are so tightly bound to settings that an expectation of cross-setting races (in any sane sort of way that would share characteristics) is, frankly, harmful to my verisimilitude. But then again, I'm also hard against this whole "multiverse" thing they're pushing. Because it's just homogenization on a huge scale. No, your elves really were created by Corel-whosit and some spider chick must really matter. And those annoying Great Wheel-style planes force their way into everything. Ugh.

I can see giving really generic races and showing DMs how to customize those races for their setting, but then leaving the rest up to setting writers.

[Psyren]

Is it really "bloat" if almost none of the races are new to D&D?

All this book is doing is what a lot of groups were doing anyway - letting you take something setting-specific, or that originally appeared in some kind of monster manual with a "X as PCs" sidebar, and compiling it in one place as a general player option. It's giving DMs the freedom to say "setting-specific is banned" without curtailing a bunch of options unnecessarily. Minotaurs and Centaurs for example exist in a lot of settings besides Ravnica.

[tokek]

Race bloat doesn't really have much more impact on the game than Background bloat. Its essentially simple static stuff. A few races have an ability or spell that comes online at a certain level but again that's usually quite a simple thing.

Classes are a whole different level of complexity altogether. Which imposes a learning curve on DMs in particular. One of the clear objectives of 5e was to be an easier game to pick up and play than 3/3.5/4 were. Restricting the number of classes is part of that as they form a large part of the complexity of the game.

[KorvinStarmast]

They seem to be most comfortable introducing new subsystems in the setting books. Like the piety feature in Theros.

(we shouldn't go back to three or four classes), but the opposite end of that logic isn't that every concept needs to be explored as a class. {snip} And to be honest, breaking established action economy in a way that is ripe for abuse does not sound like something that should exist, nevermind have an entire class paving the way for it. Agree, and particularly with your second point.


You seem to be inferring that the Artificer is bad, I hold the opposite opinion of it's actually designed near perfectly, interesting and competitive without being OP and it does what it's meant to: make magical stuff and use magical stuff. Which is a great fit for a magitech world. :smallsmile:


Throwing out a class for every concept like this is exactly how you end up with the bloat older editions are infamous for. Needs to be displayed in 200' foot tall burning letters.

JK Rowling neither invented the concept of a magical school, nor owns any rights to anything but the school she created. Ursula K LeGuin (protagonist Ged) attended a magic academy in A Wizard of Earthsea - which IIRC was published in the 1968. Rowling's Hogwarts is a vapid imitation, at best (but she is from a different 'school' of world building in any case). Caveat/Note: LeGuin's world building approach informs my own and has since I first tried to build a world for a D&D campaign back in the late 70's.
Magic is a central part of life in most of Earthsea, with the exception of the Kargish lands, where it is banned. There are weather workers on ships, fixers who repair boats and buildings, entertainers, and court sorcerers. Magic is an inborn talent which can be developed with training. The most gifted are sent to the school on Roke, where, if their skill and their discipline prove sufficient, they can become staff-carrying wizards. A strong theme of the stories is the connection between power and responsibility. There is often a Taoist message: "good" wizardry tries to be in harmony with the world, while "bad" wizardry, such as necromancy, can lead to an upsetting of the "balance" and threaten catastrophe. While the dragons are more powerful, they act instinctively to preserve the balance. Only humans pose a threat to it.

Magical schools are natural extensions of worlds where magic exists, actually providing support for that mechanically is not a HP clone and Strixhaven has nothing in common with Hogwarts apart from being 'a magical school.' But perhaps inspired by it (in terms of to whom the devs pander ~ market research is a thing).

People griped about class bloat; no-one really talked about race bloat. Pretty sure that's at least 50% of it. I am with PhoenixPhyre as regards "playable races need to fit the world/setting that they are in" and I take that a step further to "enough different varieties of elves already!" :smalltongue:

One of the clear objectives of 5e was to be an easier game to pick up and play than 3/3.5/4 were. Restricting the number of classes is part of that as they form a large part of the complexity of the game.
We have a winner, give that poster a cigar. :smallsmile: (Or a nice cup of tea). I'll argue that we can trim the number of classes considerably and still have a very playable game. (Ranger as a half caster Fighter sub class, or as a half caster Barbarian sub class is a place where I'd start). Barbarian as a Fighter Sub class is another way to approach this.

[Pooky the Imp]

To those saying race-bloat doesn't matter because race has so little impact, perhaps that is a problem in and of itself?

I certainly think it's a shame that we seem to be heading in the direction of making races more homogenous, rather than more distinct.

[Amechra]

Race bloat is... frustrating... to me, but that's mostly because my preference is for 3-5 playable races per setting (so you can go deep with their cultures and actually make them mechanically distinct/interesting)¹. But that's not the game D&D is, so meh to that I guess.

And yeah, I think the fact that they go crazy on races (and spells) while mostly leaving the classes alone is entirely because of how much more effort a class takes to make, both mechanically and conceptually.

¹ In my latest campaign, I offered 7 races to start and players have since "unlocked" 1 more. The thing is that 3 of those races (think humans, half-orcs, and sea elves) are considered to be humans in-setting, and another 3 races (think gnomes, dwarves, and goliaths) are different age-categories of the same creature.

[diplomancer]

The truth is, apart from some nice synergies between race and class (for example, fear-causing racials on a Conquest Paladin), race has a small impact on combat mechanics compared to class. Now, though I'm not sure that's a good thing, I don't think Tasha's is to blame, nor do I think this is because "all races feel the same". I think races should be more an aid to roleplaying than a list of combat features.

So, Racial Bloat almost never creates balancing issues. Though it DOES create world-building issues, they are by far much easier for DMs to ban-hammer than classes.

[HPisBS]

To those saying race-bloat doesn't matter because race has so little impact, perhaps that is a problem in and of itself?

I certainly think it's a shame that we seem to be heading in the direction of making races more homogenous, rather than more distinct.

When a few people want to pretend that DnD races represent irl "races," and there's a culture of {Scrubbed}pandering, "more homogenous" is, unfortunately, the only direction it's gonna go.

[Composer99]

The strict answer to the question has already been answered - adding a new PC race simply doesn't impact the mechanical side of the game the way adding a new class does. It's much simpler (on that score).

I think that it's just fine that the game includes a wide variety of playable PC races. I do think the DMG should have provided more guidance on including races in your setting if you wanted to have restricted options. There's nothing wrong with either kitchen sink settings or settings with restricted options, but the DMG should have more to say for DMs interested in either. (I don't recall offhand what the PHB has to say on the topic, but something like "your DM might not include all the character races in this chapter in their setting - consult with your DM for more details" would have been valuable.)

[P. G. Macer]

Now that I have some more time on my hands, I’ll offer my two copper pieces.

I agree with the posters who have said that race bloat is in fact a problem. Part of the issue stems from many casual tables allowing any and all official WotC content, even if that means playing a githyanki in Theros. This policy I believe stems from the earlier days of 5e when there was a dearth of official content, so DMs could easily moderate what was allowed, but restrictions seemed punitive due to how few choices there were to begin with.

That said, counting UA we now have 11 varieties of elf, and D&D 5e now has an entry for the TVTropes pages Loads and Loads of Races (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LoadsAndLoadsOfRaces) and Massive Race Selection (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MassiveRaceSelection). It would be far more reasonable for DMs to limit race selection to what is allowed in the setting they’re playing in (or not making a place for every race in their homebrew setting), yet that is still relatively rare.

Class bloat, meanwhile, I cannot speak to in terms of firsthand experience, having started D&D with 5e, but from what I can tell has a much more immediate impact on the game than race bloat, due to D&D being a class-based system.

@HPisBS: I agree that the current trend is towards homogenization, and that is awful, though what I can say within the forum rules about the rest of your comment is that the situation is somewhat more complicated than you present it, though the lamentable result is the same.

P.S. @KorvinStarmast: Glad to see another Earthsea fan around! Such an underrated series! Le Guin also made some choice remarks about Harry Potter back when it was first rocketing in popularity, but since they could be seen as rather incendiary and off topic, I won’t reproduce them here.

[Dalinar]

For what it's worth, my DM's world has about 60-70 playable race options in it (though many are subraces or half-breeds of other races). I wouldn't say it feels "bloated" or "kitchen sink" so much as it just makes his world feel huge. (It helps that some things are definitely *not* present, as well, most notably dwarves.)

Notably, there is no Tasha's ASI rule, and we don't shy away too much from the occasional racial stat penalty, or common pet peeve traits like flight speeds. This leaves a ton of design space open to make them feel distinct from each other, even if you look at the half-dozen or so different types of bird people. Regardless of how you feel about the gradual conversion to floating ASIs WOTC seems headed for, I think that that's the tradeoff you make by having or not having such rules, from a solely game design perspective. If you have no floating racial ASIs, you can have more race options that feel distinct from each other. If you do have Tasha's ASIs, your races feel more similar, but you have more flexibility within a given race. (I'm not going to derail things here and talk about the social commentary side, even if it were within forum rules to do so.)

So race bloat scales as a problem depending on how many distinct features of your character are tied to their race. 100 races are fine if there's design space to make them differ from each other. 10 races are a problem if there isn't space to make the decision feel meaningful (unless you WANT purely cosmetic races, but I don't think D&D's consumers do).

As for classes: trying to balance the same number of full classes against each other would drive me mad, personally. One new class is dramatically more complexity added to the game than one new race, and I think that's the crux of the issue here.

[Psyren]

I just don't get how anyone can look at neo-race traits like Hobgoblin's Fey Gift, or Kenku Expert Duplication/Mimicry, or Bugbear Surprise Attack, or Orc Adrenaline Rush etc and conclude "wow, these races sure are all homogenous reskins of each other!" I really just don't.

[Saelethil]

I just don't get how anyone can look at neo-race traits like Hobgoblin's Fey Gift, or Kenku Expert Duplication/Mimicry, or Bugbear Surprise Attack, or Orc Adrenaline Rush etc and conclude "wow, these races sure are all homogenous reskins of each other!" I really just don't.

Right? Ability score bonuses are the shallowest racial trait in 5e and I’m glad if decoupling them from race makes WotC use a modicum of creativity.

[Composer99]

I just don't get how anyone can look at neo-race traits like Hobgoblin's Fey Gift, or Kenku Expert Duplication/Mimicry, or Bugbear Surprise Attack, or Orc Adrenaline Rush etc and conclude "wow, these races sure are all homogenous reskins of each other!" I really just don't.

I don't know what any of those are - or if I did I've quite forgotten - but just the names add very distinct flavour to each of the creatures that possess them. So +1 to this point.

[Dork_Forge]

I just don't get how anyone can look at neo-race traits like Hobgoblin's Fey Gift, or Kenku Expert Duplication/Mimicry, or Bugbear Surprise Attack, or Orc Adrenaline Rush etc and conclude "wow, these races sure are all homogenous reskins of each other!" I really just don't.

But can you see how moving to floating ASIs at the same time as ripping flavourful detail (Age, Height and Weight) out and making it 'about the same as humans' boilerplate is?

Even with the new Genasi being improved, they did so by removing some of the uniqueness between them (like how they all now get Darkvision and the red tint is gone from Fire's).

[KorvinStarmast]

I'll only say this once: the "can be small or medium" for size for all of those race options annoys me. It is not an improvement. (But as I am long since tired of the small races for PCs _ I guess it was the Kender that were the final tipping point_that was bound to annoy me. A matter of taste, I guess).

[Amdy_vill]

isn't there like 90 subs in the main books and like another 30 in those plane shift splatbooks. like 120 subs and theirs only 115 races in the game and 150 if you count the plane shift books. it kinda seems to me they is a smilier amount of options for both,

[Amechra]

But can you see how moving to floating ASIs at the same time as ripping flavourful detail (Age, Height and Weight) out and making it 'about the same as humans' boilerplate is?

That's honestly the main thing that bugs me about the Tasha's changes, far more than the ASI thing. Seriously, two of the iconic races are Bearded Humans Who Are Shorter On Average and Pointy-Eared Humans Who Live A Really Long Time!

[Psyren]

I don't know what any of those are - or if I did I've quite forgotten - but just the names add very distinct flavour to each of the creatures that possess them. So +1 to this point.

Those are the new traits they got in Monsters of the Multiverse.


But can you see how moving to floating ASIs at the same time as ripping flavourful detail (Age, Height and Weight) out and making it 'about the same as humans' boilerplate is?

No, I really don't. Age matters in almost no campaigns at all. Neither do Height and Weight as long as you're in the same size category.


Even with the new Genasi being improved, they did so by removing some of the uniqueness between them (like how they all now get Darkvision and the red tint is gone from Fire's).

Oh noes, not the red tint! Be still my heart!

[JackPhoenix]

No, I really don't. Age matters in almost no campaigns at all. Neither do Height and Weight as long as you're in the same size category.

Well, congratulations on never having to drag a fallen party member around.

[Psyren]

Well, congratulations on never having to drag a fallen party member around.

Right, because the Medium races in the PHB differed so wildly from each other. Ditto the Small.

[JackPhoenix]

Right, because the Medium races in the PHB differed so wildly from each other. Ditto the Small.

There's, indeed, rather big difference between 77 lb and 380 lb. Or 604 lb, which is the MINIMUM possible weight for even the half-ass MtG centaur.

[Psyren]

There's, indeed, rather big difference between 77 lb and 380 lb. Or 604 lb, which is the MINIMUM possible weight for even the half-ass MtG centaur.

Centaurs and Minotaurs would fall outside the "most" in the MotM entry.

[Second Wind]

Age matters in almost no campaigns at all. Neither do Height and Weight as long as you're in the same size category.
They don't matter for tactical combat, but I gotta give descriptions.

[PhoenixPhyre]

They don't matter for tactical combat, but I gotta give descriptions.

I'll note that based on the above, they would matter for things like telekinesis or levitation, which have weight limits and are reasonable to cast in combat, as well as the result of several monster abilities.

[Psyren]

They don't matter for tactical combat, but I gotta give descriptions.

"He seems heavyset."
"She appears lithe and graceful."

Do your players walk around with bathroom scales?


I'll note that based on the above, they would matter for things like telekinesis or levitation, which have weight limits and are reasonable to cast in combat, as well as the result of several monster abilities.

You'll be pleased to know MotM provides guidelines if "like human" isn't enough for you then.

[Second Wind]

"He seems heavyset."
"She appears lithe and graceful."

Do your players walk around with bathroom scales?
A general sense of weight is fine, but it would get strange for height. People walk around with eyes, and notice as little as two inches of height difference. (Even less, if the characters are standing next to each other.)

[Psyren]

A general sense of weight is fine, but it would get strange for height. People walk around with eyes, and notice as little as two inches of height difference. (Even less, if the characters are standing next to each other.)

So... make them 2 inches different. "Typically fall into the same ranges" means what it says.

[diplomancer]

No, I really don't. Age matters in almost no campaigns at all. Neither do Height and Weight as long as you're in the same size category.

Did the fact that Legolas is thousands of years old matter in LotR? No. But if you didn't feel a small shiver down your spine the first time you read him say (paraphrasing) "500 times the leaves have fallen in Mirkwood since then, but it still feels like a little time", you have little imagination.

Age doesn't matter in a campaign, as long as everyone is in the same age range, or as long as they refuse to roleplay the fact of their ages. For what it's worth, it's one reason I would not play an Aarakocra (the second reason is that for the life of me I can never remember their name properly!)

[Psyren]

Did the fact that Legolas is thousands of years old matter in LotR? No. But if you didn't feel a small shiver down your spine the first time you read him say (paraphrasing) "500 times the leaves have fallen in Mirkwood since then, but it still feels like a little time", you have little imagination.

Elves still live for centuries post MotM. Again, "most" means "most."


Age doesn't matter in a campaign, as long as everyone is in the same age range, or as long as they refuse to roleplay the fact of their ages. For what it's worth, it's one reason I would not play an Aarakocra (the second reason is that for the life of me I can never remember their name properly!)

Rejoice, for your PC Aarakocra won't drop dead in the middle of dinner anymore.

[JackPhoenix]

Centaurs and Minotaurs would fall outside the "most" in the MotM entry.

That's great, but that doesn't solve the problem of lacking the required values. Look, it's nice you defend that crap, but that does not make it not crap.

[Waazraath]

As for sizes and weight: yeah, you sometimes do need it - and that also goes for monsters, which makes it really annoying that they skipped this information mostly in 5e's monster entries. 3.x was superior in this respect.


You can play D&D without an Artificer and no one will complain unless you're specifically playing Eberron. You can't play D&D without orcs. You can play D&D without Psionics and unless you're playing Dark Sun no one will complain. You can't play D&D without Gith. And you can have Artificer without Psion (and vice-versa) but you can't have Tiefling without Aasimar and Genasi

That's a generalization so it's not universally true, of course. People will complain, you can play D&D without orcs.

No. Actually, D&D gets better with only a few races. A world in which over a hundred intelligent races live kills versimilitude. Almost all fantasy settings (books, games, you name it) have a selection on races, and only a few up to maybe 5-10 are inhabiting a world. As good as any homemade world by DM's pick a bunch of races and say "this is it for my game world". Books like Ravnica do the same. In most cases I loath the adage 'less is more', but when it come to game settings and races, it does have a point. Fine there are lots of races to choose from, but including them all is a mess afaic.

As for adding classes: I agree the most elegant way is 1) having new classes with a new set of mechanics (a la binders, incarnum, etc.), 2) including this mechanics in a new setting book (a la the arteficer in Eberron) and 3) explicitly mentioning that any use of the new class outside of this setting is up to the DM. In that way you don't require DM to do obligatory 'keeping up to date with new releases', but you do create new options for those who want it (either because they play a lot and already played all classes or even subclasses, or because they like building characters). Adding psionics in this way to Dark Sun would be a no-brainer, but adding e.g. a soulbinding or incarnum based mechanic, or Something Totally New, to an original, new 5e setting would be perfect as well. I mean, 5e deserves by now, just as some new class mechanics, a setting of its own in addition to either old ones (FR, Faerun), Magic the Gathering spin-offs (ravnica, theros, strixhaven), or 3rd party based (Wildemount).

[tokek]

I'll note that based on the above, they would matter for things like telekinesis or levitation, which have weight limits and are reasonable to cast in combat, as well as the result of several monster abilities.

Yes weight does matter sometimes and I think it would be nice to have an appendix somewhere to generate character weights. I don't think I'm going to lose any sleep over it but I do agree that weight at least should have something somewhere to help with generating it.

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

No. Actually, D&D gets better with only a few races. A world in which over a hundred intelligent races live kills versimilitude. Almost all fantasy settings (books, games, you name it) have a selection on races, and only a few up to maybe 5-10 are inhabiting a world.

Hard disagree: cosmopolitan D&D can be incredibly fun, and from its inception there have been dungeons that houses more than 5-10 types of intelligent species, let alone worlds.

Kobolds, Goblins, Orcs and hobgoblins on the first floor, Drow, Illithids and Githyanki on the second. Five kinds of devils on the third floor. Hey, that’s 12 sapient species in a single ruin! And that can be completely organic: the kobolds were the original inhabitants of the upper ruins, but a crew of goblins led by hobgoblins with some orc muscle were hired by the drow who want to investigate the devil shrine on the 3rd floor and want the place guarded. The drow, of course, are under the control of a pair of Mind Flayers who have enslaved some Githyanki servants. And the devils are trapped because of some wizard’s plan gone wrong.

That’s a cosmopolitan dungeon right there.

And I should hope the City of Brass holds more peoples than just 5-10. I should hope it has HUNDREDS of different peoples flowing through it and living in little districts. It should feel like a Star Wars cantina when I walk into an inn there.

Most D&D settings have more than 10 species living there. Faerun certainly does. As does Krynn. And Athas, Oerth, Mystara, Eberron, all the MTG worlds...

Suffice it to say, most D&D assumes many, many peoples. Which is why from its inception, more and more monsters became playable races.

If you enjoy a less diverse game, or prefer to make it about diverse cultures in a few peoples rather than diverse cultures in many peoples, that’s your prerogative.

But D&D certainly doesn’t work better with fewer species. D&D is supposed to be weird. Into the Odd and Through the Looking Glass.

[Psyren]

That's great, but that doesn't solve the problem of lacking the required values.

They're not "required." And if you require them, your old books haven't gone anywhere.


Look, it's nice you defend that crap, but that does not make it not crap.

It's nice that you think it's crap, but that does not make it crap.


Yes weight does matter sometimes and I think it would be nice to have an appendix somewhere to generate character weights. I don't think I'm going to lose any sleep over it but I do agree that weight at least should have something somewhere to help with generating it.

The MotM entry has guidelines for doing this. They didn't leave people with nothing.

[Waazraath]

cosmopolitan D&D can be incredibly fun, and from its inception there have been dungeons that houses more than 5-10 types of intelligent species, let alone worlds. .. D&D is supposed to be weird. Into the Odd and Through the Looking Glass.

"can" is key for me. Fine that some of the older, traditional settings had / have scores of races, and oddball d&d is fine, and when doing a planscape/multiverse/spadetravel fantasy game of course fine that there are many races.

But the assertion that d&d must include this ("You can't play D&D without orcs" is what I replied to) does not make any sense to me. For a lot of settings having less races is better, or at least as good. Theoretially there is nothing wrong with having only 1 race, the game doesn't get any less playable with it.

[MoiMagnus]

Well, congratulations on never having to drag a fallen party member around.
*congratulation on never having to drag a fallen party member around in a campaign in which the GM enforces carrying capacity.

As far as I've observed in my campaign, the size category and whether or not the fallen party member has a heavy armour or not is all that matters.


Did the fact that Legolas is thousands of years old matter in LotR? No. But if you didn't feel a small shiver down your spine the first time you read him say (paraphrasing) "500 times the leaves have fallen in Mirkwood since then, but it still feels like a little time", you have little imagination.

Age doesn't matter in a campaign, as long as everyone is in the same age range, or as long as they refuse to roleplay the fact of their ages. For what it's worth, it's one reason I would not play an Aarakocra (the second reason is that for the life of me I can never remember their name properly!)

On one hand you're right. On the other hand if you start at low level, you can't really start with a relatively old character without it feeling wrong (at least to me). And since everyone level's up at the same speed, it always feels to me like they mature at the same speed. [And having elves start at a higher level but level up much slower would help verisimilitude, it seems to me like a very dubious game design idea for D&D]

I've only managed to actually enjoy character having different lifespans in shorter campaigns, where you start with a character that can already have a significant past, play a slice of their life (with almost no level-up), and then leave them as they still have a lot to live in their life (or not, if they died during the campaign).

[Thunderous Mojo]

D&D books that introduce settings, are the books that typically include new races.

Since Setting Books also typically proscribe choices, the default assumption, in my experience, is not all playable races are typical allowed in every campaign.

The Original Unearthed Arcana introduced races prevalent in Greyhawk:
Valley Elves, Dark Elves, Deep Gnomes etc.

Dragonlance Adventures made even more changes and additions to playable races.

Even the BECMI setting of the Mystara,”The Known World”, added new races….including rules for playing “monstrous races”.

2e Setting products abundantly added and altered races.

3e, eventually, made all creatures theoretically Playable as a PC through Level Adjustments.

4e had fewer setting books than the editions that proceeded it, thus less PC races.

5e has lots of Settings, and thusly, lots of playable race options.

Current events seem to me, to be following the Arc of History.

[Ralanr]

The only time 'weight' has ever proposed a challenge in a game I've played was in Waterdeep Dragonheist when something was stated to only support a specific amount of weight (which I felt wasn't written with a lot of weight's for characters in mind because it was the only way to cross and continue if I remembered correctly).

But weight and height don't really matter, and neither does age mechanically. These are thematic elements, and my only complaint to removing weight and height modifiers is that I'm terrible at imagining how big or heavy my character should be and often list like, 150lbs when the character is a 6'3 beefcake.

Back when age was a mechanical thing (getting older from haste as a drawback, or having stat loses/boosts depending on your age) it made more sense to factor around them. But in 5e it's mostly moot, and really only comes up if you're playing a very short lived race (like an aarakocra) and get hit with a smell or ability that affects your age (like the wild magic table) which could just kill you by old age.

This is not a common mechanic though. It's niche, and whether it's fun is subjective (I sort of like it because it makes some things more dangerous to others, but I also don't play things like aarakocra so I might be biased). As a whole, WOTC loses little by not printing them, and gains little from keeping them.

But extra space in books is extra space in books.

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

"can" is key for me. Fine that some of the older, traditional settings had / have scores of races, and oddball d&d is fine, and when doing a planscape/multiverse/spadetravel fantasy game of course fine that there are many races.

But the assertion that d&d must include this ("You can't play D&D without orcs" is what I replied to) does not make any sense to me. For a lot of settings having less races is better, or at least as good. Theoretially there is nothing wrong with having only 1 race, the game doesn't get any less playable with it.

Certainly. You can play humans only D&D. You only fight other humans, itÂ’s a Song of Ice and Fire where Dothraki are the Orcs, the wildlings are the Wood Elves, the Iron Islanders are the Giants, the Tyrells are the halflings, whatever. ThatÂ’s a perfectly fine way to run your campaign.

But from a design standpoint, the legacy of the game has always been cosmopolitan: itÂ’s always begun in the monster manuals, pages full of sapient creatures that a player looks at and says: I want to be that!

So we get Dragon Magazine articles, splat books, campaign settings that become part of the witches homebrew that has a Thri-Kreen, a gnome and a Half dragon exploring BaldurÂ’s Gate, because thatÂ’s what players want.

And it’s easier (and more lucrative) to say “here are the options, go nuts!” than to ignore the demand for this.

You the DM can limit races, or make the PCs a unicorn (both literally and figuratively). And there is material that supports this: Curse of Strahd is incredibly humanocentric, Princes of the Apocalypse is Tolkien-esquire with most of its NPCs in civilized spaces.

But that doesnÂ’t mean it runs better without the other species. Frozen Sick and Wildemount, Dragon Heist and Mad Mage or Descent into Avernus are incredibly cosmopolitan and it works great.

But asserting having tieflings, orcs, kobolds, Dragonborn, elves, genasi, lizard folk and dwarves damages verisimilitude?

Simply untrue, unless the largest RPG in the hobby has been damaging verisimilitude for decades.

[Waazraath]

But asserting having tieflings, orcs, kobolds, Dragonborn, elves, genasi, lizard folk and dwarves damages verisimilitude?

Simply untrue, unless the largest RPG in the hobby has been damaging verisimilitude for decades.

This is not what I said. I stated that having all races included damages verisimilitude, literally: "A world in which over a hundred intelligent races live kills versimilitude". And I said that 'standard' fantasy stories, books, games, have a hand full of them, literally: "only a few up to maybe 5-10". So a setting with gtieflings, orcs, kobolds, dragonborn, elves, genasi, lizard folk and dwarves: totally fine. Only if you add dozens and dozens of other intelligent humanoids, and then scores of intelligent monster races, when it starts to get weird.

And nothing wrong with weird, but it's not obligatory. Let's be fair: the old school dungeons could suck a bit for verisimilitude; huge dungeons with in one room a bunch of orcs, then one with a dragon, follwed by one with a vampire, some human bandits, random drow, and a demon boss monster: that's all nice and fun for a beer & pretzel game where you kick in the door and do some hack & slash and have your fighter Bob the 4th (who replaced Bob the 3rd with exactly the same stats) before killing the Evil Mad Wizard Who Created The Dungeon and running off with the loot. But when the storytelling aspect of a game gets a bit more important, you probably don't want to walk through the underdark and encounter 15 different types of humanoids alone. By having a few, you can give them real cultures, economies, history etc and make them distinct, which simply does not work in most games except for the basest level, if you have too many of them - and most players won't be able to distinguish between evil humanoid #7 and #8.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is not what I said. I stated that having all races included damages verisimilitude, literally: "A world in which over a hundred intelligent races live kills versimilitude". And I said that 'standard' fantasy stories, books, games, have a hand full of them, literally: "only a few up to maybe 5-10". So a setting with gtieflings, orcs, kobolds, dragonborn, elves, genasi, lizard folk and dwarves: totally fine. Only if you add dozens and dozens of other intelligent humanoids, and then scores of intelligent monster races, when it starts to get weird.


I'd say it depends. Are they all naturally occurring, occur in large numbers in most areas of the setting? Then sure.

But a world's a big place. And in D&D-land, most of the races don't have to actually be naturally evolved in any sense. Or really wide-spread.

You could have halflings...but only in this one corner of the land, and only as a mutated form of goblins. And dragonborn (as artificially-created but true-breeding people) over in that corner. Kenku as artificial hybrids of humans and birds down on that continent to the south, and only in one area.[1] Etc. So any given play area would only hit a few races in any number, plus the possible "strangers from afar" to explain those weird PCs.

[1] all examples taken from my setting, where just about everybody is artificial of one sort or another, with the only "original" races being goblinoids (all 3 one species), elves (and even they've undergone modification), and goliaths. Dwarves? An artificial (but ancient) offshoot of goliaths. Almost all the monster groups? Blame the ancient high elves, they loved them some flesh-warping magics. Or blame demons, that usually works.

[Elves]

The odd thing is that because, unlike in 3e and 4e, classes don't need to be supported with a bevy of feats, paragon paths/PRCs and magic items, 5th is actually the edition where it would make the most sense to have class bloat. Unlike in the preceding editions, there's no reason in 5th that you can't just print out reams of classes as one-offs.

[CIDE]

The odd thing is that because, unlike in 3e and 4e, classes don't need to be supported with a bevy of feats, paragon paths/PRCs and magic items, 5th is actually the edition where it would make the most sense to have class bloat. Unlike in the preceding editions, there's no reason in 5th that you can't just print out reams of classes as one-offs.

I hadn't thought of that but it's pretty true. The only thing that might need to be updated at any given time are spell lists if new spells are printed. I still think it's wise that they avoid classes that add entirely new subsystems or mechanics (like a Truenamer, Binder, ToB classes, etc) since that gets into why a lot of people disliked class bloat in previous editions.

[Elves]

I still think it's wise that they avoid classes that add entirely new subsystems or mechanics (like a Truenamer, Binder, ToB classes, etc) since that gets into why a lot of people disliked class bloat in previous editions.

oh no, interesting and varied character options that we're under no compulsion to use. the edition is ruined :smallsmile:

[CIDE]

oh no, interesting and varied character options that we're under no compulsion to use. the edition is ruined :smallsmile:

Not my words. I enjoyed how expansive 3.5 was.

[Elves]

Not my words. I enjoyed how expansive 3.5 was.
I am actually skeptical on the whole about how much 5e's success is due to its game design as opposed to the wider zeitgeist (streaming and the ascendancy of "geek culture"). 4e is the worst-selling WOTC edition, while 5e is the best-selling one. Yet 4th isn't significantly harder to learn -- it's basically just as stripped down as 5th and in some ways moreso (look at the spell descriptions). Much bigger are the external differences: no acrimonious edition war, MMOs no longer the shiny new thing in fantasy, the proliferation of VTTs, millions of people tuning into streams, a prominent role in a hit TV show starting from the opening scene, and the completion of a sea change regarding fantasy's role in the mainstream ("Game of Thrones" debuted a year before the last 4e book).

That's why I don't necessarily buy "we all know x thing from y edition was unpopular" just because 5e is successful. It's on cultural headwinds.

[Kane0]

I only have like 4 races in my game, anything new that gets released just adds to the lists of features that they can choose from.

[MoiMagnus]

I am actually skeptical on the whole about how much 5e's success is due to its game design as opposed to the wider zeitgeist (streaming and the ascendancy of "geek culture"). 4e is the worst-selling WOTC edition, while 5e is the best-selling one. Yet 4th isn't significantly harder to learn -- it's basically just as stripped down as 5th and in some ways moreso (look at the spell descriptions). Much bigger are the external differences: no acrimonious edition war, MMOs no longer the shiny new thing in fantasy, the proliferation of VTTs, millions of people tuning into streams, a prominent role in a hit TV show starting from the opening scene, and the completion of a sea change regarding fantasy's role in the mainstream ("Game of Thrones" debuted a year before the last 4e book).

That's why I don't necessarily buy "we all know x thing from y edition was unpopular" just because 5e is successful. It's on cultural headwinds.

My personal experience as a beginner GM on 4e is that it was a very bad edition to start GMing for. I've tried to build my own fight of level 1 PCs against goblins (I took one standard goblin per PC) and is literally lasted for 4 hours as everyone had seemingly a bloat-load of hit points. It essentially killed this campaign. (I ended up managing to start another campaign later with another group, a little more successful, but still felt like the system was making fake promises about what was fun and interesting).
I know I was a bad GM at the time, but looking at 5e, it seems much more kind to mismanagement on the GM side than 4e.

Obviously, fantasy becoming mainstream helped. Obviously, Critical Role existing helped. But for example, I'm not sure Critical Role would have chosen D&D if 5e was not at least somewhat competently designed, and allowed enough leeway for theatrical RP. Another RPG could have taken the spot.

In particular, from my experience in France, another did for the whole duration of 4e era, it was "Le Donjon de Naheulbeuk", a modified version of the Dark Eye RPG, who enjoyed popularity due to a French MP3 series. And it was much easier to have an interesting session of this RPG as a beginner GM.

[Thunderous Mojo]

As for sizes and weight: yeah, you sometimes do need it -

“Hey Google/Alexa How much does a horse weigh?” Problem solved.

3e weight figures seemed to consist of a designer picking a number out of the air…….Shaquille O’Neal is the size of an Ogre, but 3e had large sized bipedal creatures that weighed almost 700lbs sometimes…..

When in doubt roll some dice:
“1-3: Leviate can work 4-6: It weighs more than Levitate can handle”.

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

This is not what I said. I stated that having all races included damages verisimilitude, literally: "A world in which over a hundred intelligent races live kills versimilitude". And I said that 'standard' fantasy stories, books, games, have a hand full of them, literally: "only a few up to maybe 5-10". So a setting with gtieflings, orcs, kobolds, dragonborn, elves, genasi, lizard folk and dwarves: totally fine. Only if you add dozens and dozens of other intelligent humanoids, and then scores of intelligent monster races, when it starts to get weird.

This 5-10 number, I don’t really buy it. You know what settings have “dozens and dozens of other intelligent humanoids”?

Narnia. Warcraft. Warhammer. Discworld. Magic the Gatherint. Not exactly minor fantasy settings.

9 Hells, once you look closely at Middle Earth, you realize there are over 10 kinds of elves, 7 or 8 kinds of dwarves, three kinds of hobbits, at least 3 kinds of orcs, The Ents/entwives/Huorns, how you divide the ainur (just Maiar and Valar? Are Wizards and Balrogs the same race?), then factor in the various undead, the sapient spiders and eagles, do you consider a Numenorean the same as a Beorning the same as a Dunling? I mean, you *can* perhaps pare middle earth down to 12, but not by D&D race standards.


And nothing wrong with weird, but it's not obligatory. Let's be fair: the old school dungeons could suck a bit for verisimilitude; huge dungeons with in one room a bunch of orcs, then one with a dragon, follwed by one with a vampire, some human bandits, random drow, and a demon boss monster: that's all nice and fun for a beer & pretzel game where you kick in the door and do some hack & slash and have your fighter Bob the 4th (who replaced Bob the 3rd with exactly the same stats) before killing the Evil Mad Wizard Who Created The Dungeon and running off with the loot. But when the storytelling aspect of a game gets a bit more important, you probably don't want to walk through the underdark and encounter 15 different types of humanoids alone. By having a few, you can give them real cultures, economies, history etc and make them distinct, which simply does not work in most games except for the basest level, if you have too many of them - and most players won't be able to distinguish between evil humanoid #7 and #8.

Or, conversely, encountering a bunch of orcs, a dragon, a vampire, bandits, some drow and a demon might tell us a story about a real culture with an economy and history:

What if the vampire was an wizard, cursed by the demon she summoned? Now they are cursed and slumber, but their tower, full of riches, is now occupied by a dragon who is worshipped by a clan of orcs. The bandits have come seeking the riches, the drow the demon.

Now you have a living story where different cultures with different agendas that are easily recalled: orcs worship dragons, dragons seek magical wealth, drow worship demons, humans are greedy mercenaries, vampires are created by demon curses.

You now have the seeds for these fully realized cultures and economies and histories that the players can easily associate with an iconic species. And perhaps they want to be one of those species and explore them in further depth.

If it was just a bunch of human cultists who worshipped the dragon, and a bunch of human bandits looking for gold, and a bunch of human cultists seeking the demon, well, the story is still there, but now the lines are muddier: are these humans all aligned? Are they all from different cultures? Are some from the same culture, but some are not? It’s not as clear.

And that assumes the emergent story I created holds.

How boring is a dungeon that has some human warriors, a dragon,a vampire, some human bandits, some more human bandits and a demon?

More species serve as narrative shorthand to indicate an alienation from the baseline human: we assume orcs and drow and humans are different culturally in a way we don’t with all humans.

[hamishspence]

3e weight figures seemed to consist of a designer picking a number out of the air…….Shaquille O’Neal is the size of an Ogre, but 3e had large sized bipedal creatures that weighed almost 700lbs sometimes…..

700 lb is a little overweight for an 8 ft biped - but not badly so. Shaquille is 7 ft, whereas ogres start at 8 ft and go up from there.

A better example of "picking a number out of the air" is the way pit fiends and balors, which are both winged humanoids and both around 12 ft high, are so radically different in weight - pit fiends being 800 pounds, balors being 4500 pounds.

800 pounds is extremely underweight for a 12 ft humanoid, and 4500 pounds extremely overweight.

Using the square-cube law, scaling them both down to 6 ft (so 1/8 the weight) we'd be looking at a 100 pound 6 foot pit fiend and a 562.5 pound 6 ft balor - yet the art certainly doesn't portray either as that thin, or that fat, respectively.

[Thunderous Mojo]

700 lb is a little overweight for an 8 ft biped - but not badly so. Shaquille is 7 ft, whereas ogres start at 8 ft and go up from there. .

What 8’ tall hominid are you referencing?
Biomechanics is a cruel mistress.

[hamishspence]

I assumed you were talking about 8-or-so-footers here:


3e had large sized bipedal creatures that weighed almost 700lbs sometimes…..


The MM has "more than 7 ft tall and about 700 pounds" for Minotaurs, at least.

[Thunderous Mojo]

I was…the casual way you threw out that “700lbs is a bit overweight for an 8’ biped”….that took me aback.

To my knowledge there are no 8’ tall hominid species….so any weight listed for Ogres, Minotaurs etc is a guess at best…or a randomly selected number at worse.

[hamishspence]

I was…the casual way you threw out that “700lbs is a bit overweight for an 8’ biped”….that took me aback.

To my knowledge there are no 8’ tall hominid species….so any weight listed for Ogres, Minotaurs etc is a guess at best…or a randomly selected number at worse.I was using "exactly the same shape and density as an average human, just scaled up" as a starting point, at least in a D&D context.


Using that baseline, an 8 ft humanoid built exactly the same way as a 6 ft, 200 pound humanoid, "ought" to weigh around 474 pounds, not 700.

In real life, there have been a few (a very few) humans of 8 ft or so - and even the "strongmen" among those have been far more lightly built than 700 pounds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Édouard_Beaupré

Around 21-years-old, he stood 2.41 m (7 ft 11 in) and weighed 166 kilograms (366 lb).
At the time of his death, he was 2.49 m (8 ft 2 in) tall and weighed 170 kilograms (370 lb), as indicated on his death certificate.


In that context it's reasonable to say 700 pounds is pretty heavy for an 8 ft humanoid - but not quite as bad as the 4500 pound 12 ft balor is.

[Waazraath]

“Hey Google/Alexa How much does a horse weigh?” Problem solved.

3e weight figures seemed to consist of a designer picking a number out of the air…….Shaquille O’Neal is the size of an Ogre, but 3e had large sized bipedal creatures that weighed almost 700lbs sometimes…..

When in doubt roll some dice:
“1-3: Leviate can work 4-6: It weighs more than Levitate can handle”.

Yeah, great... now google how much that red wyrmling weights so you know if your character can drag it along. I mean... of course some designer picked the number out of the air, and of course there are instances that it doesnt make that much sense. But I still like the designer doing that job and me not having to spend time thinking about it or rolling extra dice for it when running a session - tbh I consider it the designers job to make running the game easy. And it's not just mechanically, it's also for descriptions. Players ask "how tall" and I don't want to make up stuff (and then having to remember it).


This 5-10 number, I don’t really buy it. You know what settings have “dozens and dozens of other intelligent humanoids”?

Narnia. Warcraft. Warhammer. Discworld. Magic the Gatherint. Not exactly minor fantasy settings.

9 Hells, once you look closely at Middle Earth, you realize there are over 10 kinds of elves, 7 or 8 kinds of dwarves, three kinds of hobbits, at least 3 kinds of orcs, The Ents/entwives/Huorns, how you divide the ainur (just Maiar and Valar? Are Wizards and Balrogs the same race?), then factor in the various undead, the sapient spiders and eagles, do you consider a Numenorean the same as a Beorning the same as a Dunling? I mean, you *can* perhaps pare middle earth down to 12, but not by D&D race standards.


Oh come on. You really gonna count subraces to get to an arbitrarily high number of races in lotr? For the humanoids there are humans, dwarves, elves, halflings, and orcs/goblins as evil perversions of those. Transfer those to a game and you have exactly those 5-10 I'm talking about. Warhammer has little more (barring 40k but that is a whole galaxy), magic the gathering limits races per setting, Pratchett's discworld is really different since it wants to be a mirror of all types of fantasy. If you look at Midkemia, the books of David Eddings, The Worm Ouroboros, Earthsea, Vance's books, Westeros - you're not really gonna argue that it is default, or even common, to have 40+ intelligent humanoids running around on any fantasy world, in addition to scores of intelligent monsters?


Or, conversely, encountering a bunch of orcs, a dragon, a vampire, bandits, some drow and a demon might tell us a story about a real culture with an economy and history:

What if the vampire was an wizard, cursed by the demon she summoned? Now they are cursed and slumber, but their tower, full of riches, is now occupied by a dragon who is worshipped by a clan of orcs. The bandits have come seeking the riches, the drow the demon.

Now you have a living story where different cultures with different agendas that are easily recalled: orcs worship dragons, dragons seek magical wealth, drow worship demons, humans are greedy mercenaries, vampires are created by demon curses.

You now have the seeds for these fully realized cultures and economies and histories that the players can easily associate with an iconic species. And perhaps they want to be one of those species and explore them in further depth.

If it was just a bunch of human cultists who worshipped the dragon, and a bunch of human bandits looking for gold, and a bunch of human cultists seeking the demon, well, the story is still there, but now the lines are muddier: are these humans all aligned? Are they all from different cultures? Are some from the same culture, but some are not? It’s not as clear.

And that assumes the emergent story I created holds.

How boring is a dungeon that has some human warriors, a dragon,a vampire, some human bandits, some more human bandits and a demon?


As boring or as fun as your DM makes it.


I'd say it depends. Are they all naturally occurring, occur in large numbers in most areas of the setting? Then sure.

But a world's a big place. And in D&D-land, most of the races don't have to actually be naturally evolved in any sense. Or really wide-spread.

You could have halflings...but only in this one corner of the land, and only as a mutated form of goblins. And dragonborn (as artificially-created but true-breeding people) over in that corner. Kenku as artificial hybrids of humans and birds down on that continent to the south, and only in one area.[1] Etc. So any given play area would only hit a few races in any number, plus the possible "strangers from afar" to explain those weird PCs.

[1] all examples taken from my setting, where just about everybody is artificial of one sort or another, with the only "original" races being goblinoids (all 3 one species), elves (and even they've undergone modification), and goliaths. Dwarves? An artificial (but ancient) offshoot of goliaths. Almost all the monster groups? Blame the ancient high elves, they loved them some flesh-warping magics. Or blame demons, that usually works.

True. It depends on several factors: veteran players who already have a notion about most of the races will be more able to keep different types of humanoids apart, and if you have that big world and spent lots of time world building it /can/ be done. But it will take effort, is much more difficult to do, and again, the origional claim I replied to was you MUST have all these races for d&d to be d&d. And I still consider that untrue. 40+ races is more of a hassle than a boon.

[CIDE]

I am actually skeptical on the whole about how much 5e's success is due to its game design as opposed to the wider zeitgeist (streaming and the ascendancy of "geek culture"). 4e is the worst-selling WOTC edition, while 5e is the best-selling one. Yet 4th isn't significantly harder to learn -- it's basically just as stripped down as 5th and in some ways moreso (look at the spell descriptions). Much bigger are the external differences: no acrimonious edition war, MMOs no longer the shiny new thing in fantasy, the proliferation of VTTs, millions of people tuning into streams, a prominent role in a hit TV show starting from the opening scene, and the completion of a sea change regarding fantasy's role in the mainstream ("Game of Thrones" debuted a year before the last 4e book).

That's why I don't necessarily buy "we all know x thing from y edition was unpopular" just because 5e is successful. It's on cultural headwinds.

I'd agree with pretty much all of that. 5e just hit with the whole right place/right time working in its favor. It's also no longer as socially taboo to be an open nerd like it was in the 2000's. Hell, I worked in the very same high school I attended in the early 2000's and things that were very unpopular, to the point of ridicule, were open and endorsed. Not that there weren't just as many nerds; it just wasn't advertised since they could hide out at home and play the aforementioned MMO in private. We even see it in other pop culture stuff. The same crowds of people clamoring for the next marvel movie likely overlap with the same people that made fun of people like me for being into the exact same stories in comic form.

Not a lot of experience with 4e to really comment on that, though.


700 lb is a little overweight for an 8 ft biped - but not badly so. Shaquille is 7 ft, whereas ogres start at 8 ft and go up from there.

A better example of "picking a number out of the air" is the way pit fiends and balors, which are both winged humanoids and both around 12 ft high, are so radically different in weight - pit fiends being 800 pounds, balors being 4500 pounds.

800 pounds is extremely underweight for a 12 ft humanoid, and 4500 pounds extremely overweight.

Using the square-cube law, scaling them both down to 6 ft (so 1/8 the weight) we'd be looking at a 100 pound 6 foot pit fiend and a 562.5 pound 6 ft balor - yet the art certainly doesn't portray either as that thin, or that fat, respectively.

I always suspected Outsiders could get a little wonky since, theoretically, their bodies don't even have to adhere to anything resembling the anatomy of a living creature or the laws of physics. Harder to make the justification for Humanoids and such. Aberrations being some weird middle ground between the two.

[Thunderous Mojo]

- tbh I consider it the designers job to make running the game easy. And it's not just mechanically, it's also for descriptions. Players ask "how tall" and I don't want to make up stuff (and then having to remember it).

This is “Damned, whatever you do” Territory.

Give pages of detailed ecology information, and people will complain there is too much to remember, or treat every word as RAW gospel.

At some point, every DM has to “Make something up..and remember it”…
(*cough Notebook+Notes…physical or digital*)

Complexity is a feature not a bug of RPGs.

[Waazraath]

This is “Damned, whatever you do” Territory.

Give pages of detailed ecology information, and people will complain there is too much to remember, or treat every word as RAW gospel.

At some point, every DM has to “Make something up..and remember it”…
(*cough Notebook+Notes…physical or digital*)

Complexity is a feature not a bug of RPGs.

Of course, but isn't that true for almost all aspects of the game? Hardly a reason not to discuss it here, with reasons on why we like/not like. Personally, I like the detailed ecology descriptions, and prefer editions with much more of that (and a smaller font, so it didn't come at the cost of 'less monsters' - though I know some peeps don't like that either). I acknowledge the danger of people treating the descriptions as 'RAW gospel', but that could be countered to some degree by some text (rules?) stating "these are suggestions / the default situation for these monsters in setting X, exceptions may occur, up to the DM etc. etc."
I could also live with some middle ground without the ecology, but inclusion of some heigth / weight information, logicial imo since this also has a mechanical component. It's not as if this will take much space.
And yeah, DM'ing is complex and should be, but I prefer to use my limited mental bandwidth when DM'ing on all those other complex task: looking around checking if everybody is still having fun, thinking ahead on encounters to come and how to introduce them, keeping track on what happens in the story, remembering what chararacteristcs npc's have so I can rp them in a half decent way, keeping broadly track on the resources of the party to avoid accidental TPK's, thinking about ways to make the upcoming encounters funny/memorable, doing obligatory bookkeeping on what npc's the party has met and what they have done so far in the session, etc. etc. etc. Not having to do additional bookkeeping on how much a horse weights is still a boon in my book.

[MoiMagnus]

This is “Damned, whatever you do” Territory.

Give pages of detailed ecology information, and people will complain there is too much to remember, or treat every word as RAW gospel.

At some point, every DM has to “Make something up..and remember it”…
(*cough Notebook+Notes…physical or digital*)

Complexity is a feature not a bug of RPGs.

I tend to call this depth, to distinguish it from complexity as in "time it takes to convert a decision made by a player/GM into a consequence in the game, and reciprocally times it takes for a player/GM to understand the game state", which is definitely a bug (well, more precisely a cost) and not a feature.

The "Wall" philosophy that the 5e team used during initial development to prevent any addition to the system that didn't pass the test of "bringing more to the game than it adds in complexity" was IMO a very good choice. One can criticise the way they evaluated features and say that some things should have passed the test, but the presence itself of the test was good.

[Hytheter]

3e weight figures seemed to consist of a designer picking a number out of the air…….Shaquille O’Neal is the size of an Ogre, but 3e had large sized bipedal creatures that weighed almost 700lbs sometimes…..

Shaquille has the proportions of a telepgraph pole. If he was not only as tall as an ogre but also as wide as one then he too would weigh in the ballpark of 700lbs.

[White Blade]

Oh come on. You really gonna count subraces to get to an arbitrarily high number of races in lotr? For the humanoids there are humans, dwarves, elves, halflings, and orcs/goblins as evil perversions of those. Transfer those to a game and you have exactly those 5-10 I'm talking about. Warhammer has little more (barring 40k but that is a whole galaxy), magic the gathering limits races per setting, Pratchett's discworld is really different since it wants to be a mirror of all types of fantasy. If you look at Midkemia, the books of David Eddings, The Worm Ouroboros, Earthsea, Vance's books, Westeros - you're not really gonna argue that it is default, or even common, to have 40+ intelligent humanoids running around on any fantasy world, in addition to scores of intelligent monsters?

Inarguably the most popular and successful media of all fantasy, Star Wars, has like 16.2 billion races in it and nobody cares. There are probably dozens each in Marvel and DC, both fantasy. Plenty of aliens in Star Trek, if we're just not pretending the soft sci-fi isn't fantasy. Is it the norm? No, I think the recent trend especially is towards less instead of more. But there are plenty of venerable works of genre fictions who say, "Yeah, we got tons of species, the world is full of peoples and places and cultures which you know nothing about." It's a way of indicating scale and giving a world character. Planescape and Spelljammer are both D&D settings of sufficient scope for this sort of thing quite easily, though their heyday has passed. But D&D still isn't Classic High Fantasy, it's much closer in its design and concept to Star Trek or the MCU than it is to Game of Thrones. You are a set of brave explorers, out on the frontier plumbing ancient secrets, or you're the heroic defenders of the realm, destroying strange menaces from within and without. The Sci-Fi Species effect isn't a core part of D&D, but it isn't a vestigial appendage of D&D either.

The Monster Manual is probably never going to be played through in a campaign, much less the Volo's Guide and whatever other splats are to hand. Most campaigns will have, if they are full of players who love non human characters, at most six player character races. More normally, they will have three humans, one Tiefling, and an elf. The point of the variety of freakish stuff in the world is for Adventure and to show that this is a weird wide world with enough to see and discover for a lifetime.

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

Oh come on. You really gonna count subraces to get to an arbitrarily high number of races in lotr? For the humanoids there are humans, dwarves, elves, halflings, and orcs/goblins as evil perversions of those. Transfer those to a game and you have exactly those 5-10 I'm talking about.

Yes, I am, because that’s how D&D operates: Shadar-Kai, Drow, Eladrin are all elves. Are you arguing in your arbitrary 5-10 that having 10 varieties of elves and 8 varieties of dwarves counts as 2 species?

And your list is lacking: As I’ve already stated: Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Ents, Hobbits, Orcs, Trolls, giants, Ainur andthe Goldberry types at a minimum (excluding the sapient Eagles, Spiders and Dragons, and all the varietals of sapient undead [I suspect Barrow-Wight doesn’t just get human stats]. That’s 10-14 at a *minimum*.

But in a D&D listing, it’s closer to 50-60 choices for your species. I certainly wouldn’t be giving a Balrog and a Wizard the same stat line. Nor an Uruk-hai and a Moria Goblin, nor Gollum and a Took.


Warhammer has little more (barring 40k but that is a whole galaxy), magic the gathering limits races per setting, Pratchett's discworld is really different since it wants to be a mirror of all types of fantasy. If you look at Midkemia, the books of David Eddings, The Worm Ouroboros, Earthsea, Vance's books, Westeros - you're not really gonna argue that it is default, or even common, to have 40+ intelligent humanoids running around on any fantasy world, in addition to scores of intelligent monsters?

I certainly am. But that’s not even the point in dispute: your assertion is that it shatters verisimilitude to have more than 10 sapient humanoids. Consider the many settings that break your axiom: Narnia, Warhammer Fantasy, the many worlds of Magic the Gathering, Oz, Malazan, Eternia, Hogwarts, Glorantha, the many worlds of Final Fantasy, Xanth…

And of course every single D&D setting has more than 10 sapient humanoids. I’ll also note that I’ve excluded all science fiction (fantasy’s roommate on library shelves. It’s not like Star Wars is about science)

Your argument that more than 10 is uncommon or that it breaks verisimilitude is incredulous. The examples that disprove it are myriad.

This doesn’t mean fantasy REQUIRES it. Merely that it’s obviously possible and incredibly popular.



True. It depends on several factors: veteran players who already have a notion about most of the races will be more able to keep different types of humanoids apart, and if you have that big world and spent lots of time world building it /can/ be done. But it will take effort, is much more difficult to do, and again, the origional claim I replied to was you MUST have all these races for d&d to be d&d. And I still consider that untrue. 40+ races is more of a hassle than a boon.

And I disagree: it’s a boon more than it’s a hassle. You aren’t required to craft an entire civilization behind a solitary alien encounter. Let the character of the Mindflayer or Elf or Lava-guy inform future exploration of their culture, the only hassle being the hassle you’d require in creating a character who is human.

It’s not more effort, you’re just assuming this library of Pre-written lore, whereas the history of D&D has been quite the opposite: usually the rough sketch of a culture came first, then the lore followed.

That’s the value of hat aliens: the hat does all the heavy lifting for the storytelling.

I don’t disagree that you can play all humans D&D and have it be interesting.

But I do disagree that 5-10 is the limit of believability. There’s too many classic examples to the contrary.

[HPisBS]

Inarguably the most popular and successful media of all fantasy, Star Wars, has like 16.2 billion races in it and nobody cares.

To be fair, that's apples and oranges. The races of Star Wars and the like span whole galaxies; their various sapient species aren't supposed to have all developed on a single little planet. lol

DnD has other realms to separate sapients / sapient origins into, like the Feywild and whatnot, but that's still a far cry from the countless planets that space-based fictions can use to populate their stories.

[PhoenixPhyre]

To be fair, that's apples and oranges. The races of Star Wars and the like span whole galaxies; their various sapient species aren't supposed to have all developed on a single little planet. lol

DnD has other realms to separate sapients / sapient origins into, like the Feywild and whatnot, but that's still a far cry from the countless planets that space-based fictions can use to populate their stories.

D&D has something(s) better:
* Active gods who meddle to create species without regards to petty things like "evolution" or "biology"
* Wizards (ok, this might be redundant) who warp and twist existing creatures into new and different shapes and forms.
* Beings who can cross-breed without even sharing a common ancestor (cough dragons cough).

The regular laws of ecosystems need not apply--you've got beings who can literally carve new species from the rock. You've got rituals that can completely transform an individual (cf the yuan-ti). Space-based fictions tend to be tied to that pesky thing called "science." Not so with D&D.

[Amnestic]

You've got rituals that can completely transform an individual (cf the yuan-ti).

Though I understand why the Reincarnate table is what it is from a mechanics perspective I do wonder how/why it works the way it does 'in-universe'. How established does a race need to be before it ends up as a potential result from Reincarnate?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Though I understand why the Reincarnate table is what it is from a mechanics perspective I do wonder how/why it works the way it does 'in-universe'. How established does a race need to be before it ends up as a potential result from Reincarnate?

Personal head-canon:

"Primal" magic (which includes druidic magic) involves working with nature spirits. So it's the nature spirits who are building the "new" body. And nature spirits aren't exactly good at telling different mortal races apart. To them, all mortals are the same. So they go with some (warped) sense of aesthetics.

So for me, in-universe, a race just has to exist somewhere in the setting's material plane as a whole. Even a small population, as long as they're in the material plane (so the nature spirits can have seen them) counts. If a race was literally created yesterday and you're half-way around the world, maybe not. But other than that? Nature spirits don't have a good sense of place, either. Or at least not in a linearly-connected, mortal-accessible sort of way.

[Ralanr]

To be fair, that's apples and oranges. The races of Star Wars and the like span whole galaxies; their various sapient species aren't supposed to have all developed on a single little planet. lol

DnD has other realms to separate sapients / sapient origins into, like the Feywild and whatnot, but that's still a far cry from the countless planets that space-based fictions can use to populate their stories.

As someone who usually finds non-humanoid races more interesting to explore, the lack of variety presented in the Star Wars stories has always bothered me.

Note I said stories, not the universe. Because despite the near countless sapient races that exist in the universe, it often bogs down to humans doing human things, with them as the primary protagonists and antagonists.

And in the first films, this made sense practically. It's cheaper to just have humans rather than spend so much money on makeup artist teams, and even today we have a big problem with these designs in live-action because it doesn't leave much room for actors to have expressions across their faces.

Animation is a different beast altogether, and we've seen more expansive races of the star wars universe utilized. To the point where apparently those frog/slug headed people have a sonic screech that (and I'm assuming this was tied with the force) can tear down hallways.

My biggest pet peeve when it comes to stories that feature more races than humans is that it's either the humans perspective, or the perspective of something that's basically humans+ (looking at you, elves).

[JackPhoenix]

Yes, I am, because that’s how D&D operates: Shadar-Kai, Drow, Eladrin are all elves. Are you arguing in your arbitrary 5-10 that having 10 varieties of elves and 8 varieties of dwarves counts as 2 species?

Yes, because that's how D&D work. All elven subraces are part of the elven race, all dwaren subraces are part of the dwarven race.


And your list is lacking: As I’ve already stated: Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Ents, Hobbits, Orcs, Trolls, giants, Ainur andthe Goldberry types at a minimum (excluding the sapient Eagles, Spiders and Dragons, and all the varietals of sapient undead [I suspect Barrow-Wight doesn’t just get human stats]. That’s 10-14 at a *minimum*.

Undead aren't race by how D&D uses the term. Neither are other monsters or unique individuals.


But in a D&D listing, it’s closer to 50-60 choices for your species. I certainly wouldn’t be giving a Balrog and a Wizard the same stat line. Nor an Uruk-hai and a Moria Goblin, nor Gollum and a Took.

So what? It's not like high elf fighter and high elf wizard, or standard MM orc and orc Eye of Gruumsh have the same stat line, despite being the same race.


I certainly am. But that’s not even the point in dispute: your assertion is that it shatters verisimilitude to have more than 10 sapient humanoids. Consider the many settings that break your axiom: Narnia, Warhammer Fantasy, the many worlds of Magic the Gathering, Oz, Malazan, Eternia, Hogwarts, Glorantha, the many worlds of Final Fantasy, Xanth…

Your argument that more than 10 is uncommon or that it breaks verisimilitude is incredulous. The examples that disprove it are myriad.


Says who, you? Who gave you the right to decide what breaks versimilitude to other people? Versimilitude is a personal thing, different people have different level of tolerance. And people can still enjoy stories even if they don't think the world makes sense.


And of course every single D&D setting has more than 10 sapient humanoids. I’ll also note that I’ve excluded all science fiction (fantasy’s roommate on library shelves. It’s not like Star Wars is about science)

False. Mine doesn't. I suspect plenty of others don't either (Cue PhoenixPhyre talking about his setting again).


Though I understand why the Reincarnate table is what it is from a mechanics perspective I do wonder how/why it works the way it does 'in-universe'. How established does a race need to be before it ends up as a potential result from Reincarnate?

Established enough to make its way into the PHB, which has nothing to do with how numerous the race is. There aren't as many tieflings as goblins, but you still find the former and not the later in the table.

[White Blade]

To be fair, that's apples and oranges. The races of Star Wars and the like span whole galaxies; their various sapient species aren't supposed to have all developed on a single little planet. lol

DnD has other realms to separate sapients / sapient origins into, like the Feywild and whatnot, but that's still a far cry from the countless planets that space-based fictions can use to populate their stories.

I don’t know, Spacejammer and Planescape are both large enough that it’s pretty easy to imagine a lot more even on an evolutionary basis. On narrow planets, like Eberron and Faerun, the explanation is usually divine instead. (Eberron is a progenitor dragon after all) An explanation that works for a setting are not hard to find, if you want it - Shadowrun has at least seven species and it’s on Earth, Dresden Files is practically Star Wars by this point and it takes place on Earth.

Some people like grounded, mostly human settings but what D&D is doing with its races is fundamentally sound if you understand what D&D is doing. To be fair, D&D could do with explaining what it’s doing more and better.

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

Yes, because that's how D&D work. All elven subraces are part of the elven race, all dwaren subraces are part of the dwarven race.

Oh. I’ve solved this for you then:

Humans, Fey Folk, Under Folk, Beast Folk. That should cover 99% of all D&D races. No more bloat! Only 4 types of races!

Now it’s simply sub-race bloat!

{Scrubbed}



Undead aren't race by how D&D uses the term. Neither are other monsters or unique individuals.

Last I checked, Dhamphir and Returned are racial options in 5e… So, that’s false.

If a zombie and a vampire have different stat lines, so should a barrow wight and a dunharrow soldier.



So what? It's not like high elf fighter and high elf wizard, or standard MM orc and orc Eye of Gruumsh have the same stat line, despite being the same race.

So what?

So an Uruk-hai Fighter and a Moria Goblin Fighter won’t have the same stats, even if they are both built the same. Nor would a Balrog Wizard and an Istari Wizard.

You probably should try some PHB examples, as no one is complaining about race bloat in the MM. Or are you?

I’ll note, a wood elf fighter and a high elf fighter also don’t share a stat line, which hurts your argument.



Says who, you? Who gave you the right to decide what breaks versimilitude to other people? Versimilitude is a personal thing, different people have different level of tolerance. And people can still enjoy stories even if they don't think the world makes sense.

And who are you to declare that it does? Exactly.
.
And says who? The people. The players of the game have spoken and want more races, not fewer. If some are left behind, no one seems terribly concerned.

But of course, you just tried to argue that people who enjoy stories that don’t exist in a world that doesn’t make sense don’t have a sense of verisimilitude in that world.

Verisimilitude need not be based in logic or rationality. It is a feeling, not a fact, as you yourself have just argued. It’s only if a logical world feels real that verisimilitude matters. If someone feels an illogical world is real, then they are feeling verisimilitude, that feeling of truth that is not truth.


False. Mine doesn't. I suspect plenty of others don't either (Cue PhoenixPhyre talking about his setting again).

I don’t count your homebrew. Your personal opinions aren’t relevant in the broader discussion.

We’re discussing published settings by WOTC and TSR, not your make-em-ups for your personal circle:

Oerth, Faerun, Mystara, Krynn, Athas, Arbrynis, Ebberon, Nentir Vale, Manifest, The Domains of Dread, the Planescapes and the Spheres, all cosmopolitan with far more than 10 sapient humanoids in them.

This is also true of the MTG settings: Theros, Ravnica, Strixhaven, Zendikar, Innistrad, Kaladesh, Amonkhet, Ixalan and Dominara.

And the third party stuff: Rokugan, Lanhkmar, Azeroth, Sanctuary.


Strange how NONE of these settings meets your criteria. Sounds like perhaps you’re home brewing because the actual published game disagrees with you.

You’re welcome to homebrew to your taste, but to suggest that every published setting shatters verisimilitude sounds very much like a you problem, rather than a “game and narrative design” problem.

[Phhase]

However, why are Races treated in a completely different manner? WotC can't seem to get enough new races!

Because god knows we want the new totally-creative tamarind-goji flavored elf (with or without lemon twist) more than, I don't know,
ANYTHING ELSE.

*cough*

Sorry bit of a chip on my shoulder. I agree. This is silly.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Of course, but isn't that true for almost all aspects of the game? Hardly a reason not to discuss it here, with reasons on why we like/not like. Personally, I like the detailed ecology descriptions, and prefer editions with much more of that.

Scope is an important consideration for a conversation…2e’s Monstrous Compendium is my personal gold standard for ‘Monster Books’ but the game went away from having that much depth..for what I assume are reasons.

All too often, it seems people are getting incensed at WotC for making decisions that don’t match their personal preferences. So while our personal tastes seemingly line up…it is important for the scope of the conversation to point out when WotC is going to get excoriated by a segment of players, regardless of the decision that was made.


Shaquille has the proportions of a telepgraph pole. If he was not only as tall as an ogre but also as wide as one then he too would weigh in the ballpark of 700lbs.

I will have to take your word on that, since we are in realms of pure fantasy as there is to my knowledge, no 8’ tall 700lb Homnid on Earth. Nor does an 8’ tall 700 lb Homnid appear in the fossil record…so evidence is not present….we only have guesses at “Accurate numbers” regarding weight, would be for Ogres/Large Humanoids.

[JackPhoenix]

I will have to take your word on that, since we are in realms of pure fantasy as there is to my knowledge, no 8’ tall 700lb Homnid on Earth. Nor does an 8’ tall 700 lb Homnid appear in the fossil record…so evidence is not present….we only have guesses at “Accurate numbers” regarding weight, would be for Ogres/Large Humanoids.

Gigantopithecus, from the few fossils we've found, is speculated be about 10' and over 600 lb, so it roughly fits into numbers for ogres. Otherwise, gorillas are about the same height as humans, but are much heavier (on average, because heaviest humans got to over 1300 lb, about twice of the heaviest gorillas).

[Hytheter]

I will have to take your word on that

You don't have to take my word for it, it's a basic maths problem. Shaquille weighs 300lbs. If he was twice as wide he'd be twice as heavy, and I'm sure you'll agree that an ogre (https://www.dndbeyond.com/avatars/thumbnails/0/285/242/315/636252770535203221.jpeg) is at least twice as wide as he (https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/OCZaoD-yf-Nbz0YI0UdlCrzNNBs=/0x0:3598x2398/920x613/filters:focal(1527x239:2101x813):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/65682187/837258892.jpg.0.jpg) is. So 700lbs for an ogre is entirely within reason; if any thing it might be too light.


since we are in realms of pure fantasy

I mean, we are talking about ogres. :smallamused:


as there is to my knowledge, no 8’ tall 700lb Homnid on Earth. Nor does an 8’ tall 700 lb Homnid appear in the fossil record…

Maybe not those exact proportions. But gorillas can be up to 6' tall and weigh almost 600 pounds. Heck, so can sumo wrestlers. Scale that up a foot or two and 700lbs doesn't seem so outrageous does it?


so evidence is not present….we only have guesses at “Accurate numbers” regarding weight, would be for Ogres/Large Humanoids.

It may be true that any figures we invent for an ogre or its like is at best a guess, but I think it's pretty clear that 700lbs is a fairly good one. It is certainly not absurdly heavy as implied by your original comment.

[KorvinStarmast]

But the assertion that d&d must include this ("You can't play D&D without orcs" is what I replied to) does not make any sense to me. Nor me. I've played in a number of campaigns with no goblins and no orcs as opponents, but loads of different kinds of humans. (Dervishes, nomads, bandits, berserkers). The DMs were both people who had never liked The Hobbit and never read LoTR. (Late 70's / early 80's).

D&D books that introduce settings, are the books that typically include new races.

Since Setting Books also typically proscribe choices, the default assumption, in my experience, is not all playable races are typical allowed in every campaign. Nailed that diver.

5e has lots of Settings, and thusly, lots of playable race options. noticeably missing is Dark Sun. :smallfurious:

D&D has something(s) better:
* Active gods who meddle to create species without regards to petty things like "evolution" or "biology"
* Wizards (ok, this might be redundant) who warp and twist existing creatures into new and different shapes and forms.
* Beings who can cross-breed without even sharing a common ancestor (cough dragons cough). I have noticed that both humans and dragons share this trait in D&D: they are promiscuous, and appear to have a tendency towards "anything with a pulse" as a mater. (With the game having been printed in the 70's while 'the sexual revolution' was still in progress (AIDS killed that in the 80's) it's no surprise that at least some elements of that would leak into the game/fiction/genre).

Yes, because that's how D&D work. All elven subraces are part of the elven race, all dwaren subraces are part of the dwarven race. Nice and simple.


Undead aren't race by how D&D uses the term.
Neither are other monsters or unique individuals. yeah. The concept is easy to grasp. I tend to be on your side with this as regards "no need to try and overcomplicate this"


Says who, you? Who gave you the right to decide what breaks versimilitude to other people? Versimilitude is a personal thing, different people have different level of tolerance. And people can still enjoy stories even if they don't think the world makes sense. Concur. (I still hate Kender).


Because god knows we want the new totally-creative tamarind-goji flavored elf (with or without lemon twist) more than, I don't know,
ANYTHING ELSE. Not to mention the India Pale Ale flavored elf, whose distinctive characteristic is that they tend to be bitter beyond belief and have a bonus to long jumps due to being overly hopped. (Yes, groan you may, but there it is!)
This is a beer joke

[Amnestic]

Personal head-canon:

"Primal" magic (which includes druidic magic) involves working with nature spirits. So it's the nature spirits who are building the "new" body. And nature spirits aren't exactly good at telling different mortal races apart. To them, all mortals are the same. So they go with some (warped) sense of aesthetics.

So for me, in-universe, a race just has to exist somewhere in the setting's material plane as a whole. Even a small population, as long as they're in the material plane (so the nature spirits can have seen them) counts. If a race was literally created yesterday and you're half-way around the world, maybe not. But other than that? Nature spirits don't have a good sense of place, either. Or at least not in a linearly-connected, mortal-accessible sort of way.

I like this since it kind of explains why more populous races (humans mostly) are more prominent on the reincarnate table than others. Makes a lot of sense.

[Amechra]

Concur. (I still hate Kender).

You and all right-minded folk, honestly.

...

That being said, I think a lot of the argumentation about verisimilitude comes down to taste. When you're designing a setting, you're basically going to have a small number of "deep" races and some number of "shallow" races (deep vs. shallow referring entirely to how much effort the people designing the setting put into their cultures and how they fit into the wider scheme of things). Some people are going to feel that having a bunch of "shallow" races lends the setting a pleasingly cosmopolitan/fantastic feeling — other people are going to feel like they're a waste of space.

Personally, I feel like D&D has way more "gimmick races" than I'd like. As I mentioned before, I vastly prefer settings that have a small handful of "races" with fleshed-out cultures and world-views.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Personally, I feel like D&D has way more "gimmick races" than I'd like. As I mentioned before, I vastly prefer settings that have a small handful of "races" with fleshed-out cultures and world-views.

Personally, I dislike tying culture and world-view to race more than incidentally. Mono-cultural races and mono-racial cultures (with the exception of cultures that are highly isolated) are bad worldbuilding IMO.

Sure, certain racial facts may play a role in shaping cultures, but I strongly dislike the "over here is a human kingdom[1], over there is an elven one, and over there is a dwarven one." And especially the idea that an elf from <place X> and an elf from <place Y> have more than biology in common by default. I think that each culture should be as diverse (both in makeup and in thought process) as all the real-world cultures.

As a result, I'm moving away (when I overcome terminal laziness) from biological sub-races entirely. Each race is its own thing which only gives the biological features; each race has multiple cultural sub-divisions which give most of the rest. Some pairs of races will have overlapping cultural choices, but the features won't be identical (due to building on a different parent), but will be similar.

This makes a human from Imaskar different at all levels than one from Cormanthyr (probably misspelling things...) and that Imaskari human will have about as much in common with a dwarf or goblin from Imaskar as they'd have with a human from Cormanthyr. Or whatever.

[Amechra]

The thing is? I agree with that. As far as I'm concerned, Humans/elves/dwarves are basically the same race.

(I confess to being a sci-fi fan first and a fantasy fan second.)

[Dork_Forge]

The thing is? I agree with that. As far as I'm concerned, Humans/elves/dwarves are basically the same race.

(I confess to being a sci-fi fan first and a fantasy fan second.)

What what? How do you square that circle when it comes to life spans, the need to sleep, and darkvision?

[PhoenixPhyre]

The thing is? I agree with that. As far as I'm concerned, Humans/elves/dwarves are basically the same race.

(I confess to being a sci-fi fan first and a fantasy fan second.)


What what? How do you square that circle when it comes to life spans, the need to sleep, and darkvision?

I agree with Dork_Forge here. Plus the whole "there's no evolution and these were created at radically different times and in radically different ways by radically different entities" thing.

I'll admit to thinking that the whole "if they don't think completely alien, they're the same" idea is not a useful concept for a TTRPG. Because, in the end, they're going to be played by humans. And humans don't think completely alien to humans (rather definitionally). So "thinking completely alien" === "not playable". Or even really representable, since even the DM is human. And even if it were (counterfactually) possible to represent them, the options for truly alien creatures boil down to conquer or be conquered. And not just conquer, but obliterate. At least if they compete for the same resources. Because cooperation requires at least some understanding, which means they can't be too alien. We want races whose drives and motivations are partially the same, but with some tweaks. And if you want something close to playability by anyone who is not [insane | expert], you have to have that "partially" be "mostly". Which means that they'll be able to live together. Generally.

[Dork_Forge]

I agree with Dork_Forge here. Plus the whole "there's no evolution and these were created at radically different times and in radically different ways by radically different entities" thing.

I'll admit to thinking that the whole "if they don't think completely alien, they're the same" idea is not a useful concept for a TTRPG. Because, in the end, they're going to be played by humans. And humans don't think completely alien to humans (rather definitionally). So "thinking completely alien" === "not playable". Or even really representable, since even the DM is human. And even if it were (counterfactually) possible to represent them, the options for truly alien creatures boil down to conquer or be conquered. And not just conquer, but obliterate. At least if they compete for the same resources. Because cooperation requires at least some understanding, which means they can't be too alien. We want races whose drives and motivations are partially the same, but with some tweaks. And if you want something close to playability by anyone who is not [insane | expert], you have to have that "partially" be "mostly". Which means that they'll be able to live together. Generally.

With the opportunity for differences nicely being subtle in motivation, e.g.:

-Elves might be extremely willing to use 'short term' compromises, because what's 80 years in the grand scheme of their settlement? Or even the life of the secretary signing the treaty?

-Dwarves may be willing to strike deal of cohabitation, with the other settling the land whilst they settle under it, pooling together during times of conflict

-Humans get the best deal they can wherever they are, they are after all meant to be the most adaptable.

[PhoenixPhyre]

With the opportunity for differences nicely being subtle in motivation, e.g.:

-Elves might be extremely willing to use 'short term' compromises, because what's 80 years in the grand scheme of their settlement? Or even the life of the secretary signing the treaty?

-Dwarves may be willing to strike deal of cohabitation, with the other settling the land whilst they settle under it, pooling together during times of conflict

-Humans get the best deal they can wherever they are, they are after all meant to be the most adaptable.

My personal taste leans away from the super-long lived idea (my dwarves hit ~150 and high elves ~200 max), but yeah.



The main cultures of high elves and dwarves in the main play area of my setting are at odds. Not hostile, but baseline dislike. Why? Because of how they approach writing. That culture of high elves sees language (spoken or written) as an extension of their status competitions and an art form, in which you try to hide all sorts of insulting subtexts inside of bland surface. Where the surface meaning is the least accurate, and the "white lie" (or even really really nearly-black lie) is expected. The dwarves of that region, however, treat the written word as sacred. You write what happened, in plain language. Lying in written text is one of their highest taboos. "Honest as dwarf writing" is a saying. And you try to get dwarven record takers...unless you want to shade the truth.

In fact, there was a major scandal caused because the ancestors of the main clans there did a really dirty deed (betrayed their allied clan, opening the gates for enemies out of jealousy and so that they could steal a magic item the other clan had) and then lied in the official record. But they were bound by the conventions enough that they also wrote the truth in their journals and filed them away in the archives! Where the party found them and successfully blackmailed the descendant leaders (who knew about the betrayal) into giving up their positions in favor of some people who didn't know (to prevent a total civil war).

On the other hand, the accuracy of elven records is...questionable...unless you're very familiar with the exact time period and local details. Because they do tell the truth...hidden between the lines. If you're not smart enough and knowledgeable enough to discover it, that's your fault.

[Ralanr]

My personal taste leans away from the super-long lived idea (my dwarves hit ~150 and high elves ~200 max), but yeah.



The main cultures of high elves and dwarves in the main play area of my setting are at odds. Not hostile, but baseline dislike. Why? Because of how they approach writing. That culture of high elves sees language (spoken or written) as an extension of their status competitions and an art form, in which you try to hide all sorts of insulting subtexts inside of bland surface. Where the surface meaning is the least accurate, and the "white lie" (or even really really nearly-black lie) is expected. The dwarves of that region, however, treat the written word as sacred. You write what happened, in plain language. Lying in written text is one of their highest taboos. "Honest as dwarf writing" is a saying. And you try to get dwarven record takers...unless you want to shade the truth.

In fact, there was a major scandal caused because the ancestors of the main clans there did a really dirty deed (betrayed their allied clan, opening the gates for enemies out of jealousy and so that they could steal a magic item the other clan had) and then lied in the official record. But they were bound by the conventions enough that they also wrote the truth in their journals and filed them away in the archives! Where the party found them and successfully blackmailed the descendant leaders (who knew about the betrayal) into giving up their positions in favor of some people who didn't know (to prevent a total civil war).

On the other hand, the accuracy of elven records is...questionable...unless you're very familiar with the exact time period and local details. Because they do tell the truth...hidden between the lines. If you're not smart enough and knowledgeable enough to discover it, that's your fault.



Elves being petty snobs who snip at each other in documents makes me giddy because we saw it all the time and still do.

[Amechra]

It's actually not a "psychologically alien" kinda thing for me, actually. The reason why I cluster those three into the same race is that they...


have the same body plan.
have really similar diets.
have really similar lifecycles.
have really similar reproductive cycles.
have incredibly similar metaphysics.


And like, yeah, sure, those humans over there are shorter than average and grow copious facial hair, while the ones living in that region got blessed by some deity and now live 2-3 times as long. That's cool, but those are still humans.

[Dork_Forge]

It's actually not a "psychologically alien" kinda thing for me, actually. The reason why I cluster those three into the same race is that they...


have the same body plan.
have really similar diets.
have really similar lifecycles.
have really similar reproductive cycles.
have incredibly similar metaphysics.


And like, yeah, sure, those humans over there are shorter than average and grow copious facial hair, while the ones living in that region got blessed by some deity and now live 2-3 times as long. That's cool, but those are still humans.

How do they have similar lifecycles? And I wasn't aware that the reproductive cycles were shared in 5E.

Although if similar diets can lump together races, then my cat and I could probably be the same race: copious amounts of protein, some greens, and some supplements.

This seems like most 5E races would be the same race under your definitions?

[Phhase]

It's actually not a "psychologically alien" kinda thing for me, actually. The reason why I cluster those three into the same race is that they...


have the same body plan.
have really similar diets.
have really similar lifecycles.
have really similar reproductive cycles.
have incredibly similar metaphysics.


And like, yeah, sure, those humans over there are shorter than average and grow copious facial hair, while the ones living in that region got blessed by some deity and now live 2-3 times as long. That's cool, but those are still humans.

See, this is why I like the really strange stuff like Thri-kreen, Locathah, and especially Warforged/other constructs. While not as relatable per se, they can be really interesting by virtue of their radical differences. Pity they get little to no respect in this edition.

[Xervous]

See, this is why I like the really strange stuff like Thri-kreen, Locathah, and especially Warforged/other constructs. While not as relatable per se, they can be really interesting by virtue of their radical differences. Pity they get little to no respect in this edition.

If you’re aiming anywhere near coherency warforged demand a lot of a setting in ways that other races like Thri-kreen don’t. So you either warp the world to involve them, play Eberron, exclude them, or you’re running silly D&D (again).

So there’s people who don’t want to warp the custom setting and don’t want to play Eberron on top the ‘no robutts in muh DnD’. Thri-kreen don’t bring the baggage of requiring a successful, non divine creator in the way that warforged tend to do. That is assuming we’re not talking about a special snowflake for whom the warforged stat block is a good fit.

[KorvinStarmast]

Personally, I feel like D&D has way more "gimmick races" than I'd like. As I mentioned before, I vastly prefer settings that have a small handful of "races" with fleshed-out cultures and world-views. Tend to see it this way.

If you’re aiming anywhere near coherency warforged demand a lot of a setting in ways that other races like Thri-kreen don’t. So you either warp the world to involve them, play Eberron, exclude them, or you’re running silly D&D (again). Concur.

Warforged fit Eberron nicely. I can do without them anywhere else.

[Amnestic]

As a one off individual character, warforged mechanically fit any golem-type character, which every official 5e setting has. Wizards do be experimenting.

Putting them in as a 'society'-size race will likely require some adjustment though.

[PhoenixPhyre]

As a one off individual character, warforged mechanically fit any golem-type character, which every official 5e setting has. Wizards do be experimenting.

Putting them in as a 'society'-size race will likely require some adjustment though.

Wizards don't however generally make living golems with souls. In fact, that's rather the opposite of a golem-type character. Being soulless creatures without minds, piloted by elemental forces.

I included a knock-off warforged in my setting. But intentionally modified it, especially in the lore. One of their key racial "traits" is that no one knows why they awake or have souls. The gods don't have anything to do with it; there are lots of identical construct bodies that never awaken. It's one of the explicitly unanswered questions of the setting.

And they don't have a society, as such. They're all accidents, individuals who one day just woke up. Many take to adventuring to try to find personal answers, but they only have minimal shared culture (other than the parts that come from their literal assembly--the steel-forged are made of metal and big and strong and tend to the arcane, while the bark-skin are, well, made of rock and wood and tend toward natural-connections due to their original nature).

[Trask]

I think avoiding race bloat is less necessary because they're more mechanically simple packages and so they can be easily curated for one's own campaign as befits their milieu. It can be a harder sell to curate classes because they define your character much more than races and they are more integral to the game.

I've played many a game where races were limited, but I've still yet to encounter a game where the DM limited what classes we could play.

[Second Wind]

The thing is? I agree with that. As far as I'm concerned, Humans/elves/dwarves are basically the same race
There's space to make them different, if you play heavily into the implications of darkvision, longevity, and stonecunning/trance. But that rarely happens. In practice, gnomes and halflings are just humans, too, because size is a ribbon. There's way more variation between dogs than between demihumans.

[Xervous]

There's space to make them different, if you play heavily into the implications of darkvision, longevity, and stonecunning/trance. But that rarely happens. In practice, gnomes and halflings are just humans, too, because size is a ribbon. There's way more variation between dogs than between demihumans.

If it fits in a purse it’s a rat not a dog

[Amnestic]

Wizards don't however generally make living golems with souls. In fact, that's rather the opposite of a golem-type character. Being soulless creatures without minds, piloted by elemental forces.

Yeah, that's why I said it works as a one off character. Because they generally don't do that, but sometimes their experiments get a bit crazy.

[KorvinStarmast]

As a one off individual character, warforged mechanically fit any golem-type character, which every official 5e setting has. Wizards do be experimenting. Cue up Ozzie Ozborne leading Black Sabbath in Iron Man.
...He was turned to steel, in a great magnetic field...

Putting them in as a 'society'-size race will likely require some adjustment though. I prefer the one off idea, but I guess that if enough are up and around, per Eberron's world building themes, there would eventually be a community ...

I included a knock-off warforged in my setting. But intentionally modified it, especially in the lore. One of their key racial "traits" is that no one knows why they awake or have souls. The gods don't have anything to do with it; there are lots of identical construct bodies that never awaken. It's one of the explicitly unanswered questions of the setting. And it worked/works well.

They're all accidents, individuals who one day just woke up. We'll get that Black Sabbath song out again. :smallsmile:

It can be a harder sell to curate classes because they define your character much more than races and they are more integral to the game. Concur.

If it fits in a purse it’s a rat not a dog For sure. My previous next door neighbor had one of those little barky things; I referred to it as the rat next door. :smallcool:

[JackPhoenix]

Thri-kreen don’t bring the baggage of requiring a successful, non divine creator in the way that warforged tend to do.

You know what brings the 'baggage of requiring a succesful, non divine creator'? Pot of Awakening. Common magic item. Which actually isn't that far from warforged: It turns plants into sapient creatures. A warforged is a sapient creature made out of living plant matter serving all 'vital' functions drapped over metal frame serving as skeleton, covered with armor serving as a skin.

[Xervous]

You know what brings the 'baggage of requiring a succesful, non divine creator'? Pot of Awakening. Common magic item. Which actually isn't that far from warforged: It turns plants into sapient creatures. A warforged is a sapient creature made out of living plant matter serving all 'vital' functions drapped over metal frame serving as skeleton, covered with armor serving as a skin.

I’d go looking in player options for examples rather than magic items which are explicitly a GM call. Magic items only need to be justified when the GM deigns to include them, player options and setting details need to be justified by default. And by justification I mean “verisimilitude explanation XYZ” or “don’t take it so seriously man”.

[KorvinStarmast]

You know what brings the 'baggage of requiring a succesful, non divine creator'? Pot of Awakening. Common magic item. Which actually isn't that far from warforged: It turns plants into sapient creatures. A warforged is a sapient creature made out of living plant matter serving all 'vital' functions drapped over metal frame serving as skeleton, covered with armor serving as a skin. Just gonna say that back in the 70's a lot of the "earthy" people swore that you could talk to your plants and they'd respond. The comic strip Doonesbury had quite a few strips lampooning that idea, and one of the characters had ongoing conversations with her plants. I think that I also recall a few Bloom County strips that did that also but that's maybe a cross memory thing going on.

A magic item that makes plants into sapient beings that you can talk to comes off with a very heavy 70's vibe.

[Psyren]

This is another reason I like Ravenloft. You don't have to deal with "muh immersion!" wailing for any race, because the Powers don't care.


Wizards don't however generally make living golems with souls. In fact, that's rather the opposite of a golem-type character. Being soulless creatures without minds, piloted by elemental forces.

I like the idea that magic can cause some things to happen unintentionally.

[JackPhoenix]

I’d go looking in player options for examples rather than magic items which are explicitly a GM call. Magic items only need to be justified when the GM deigns to include them, player options and setting details need to be justified by default. And by justification I mean “verisimilitude explanation XYZ” or “don’t take it so seriously man”.

Level 2 Artificer says hi. And there are various options to create undead or True Polymorph objects into creatures in PHB. Or Wish.

[MoiMagnus]

Level 2 Artificer says hi. And there are various options to create undead or True Polymorph objects into creatures in PHB. Or Wish.

That's one point I really disliked about the design of the Artificer. Suddenly, the list of magical item went from being a list of suggestions to the GM to a menu players can pick from.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's one point I really disliked about the design of the Artificer. Suddenly, the list of magical item went from being a list of suggestions to the GM to a menu players can pick from.

Agreed. Very much agreed.

[Psyren]

Artificer itself is optional (i.e. not core) so nothing has changed from a magic item perspective.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Artificer itself is optional (i.e. not core) so nothing has changed from a magic item perspective.

But adding Artificer also means adding not only magic items generally, but specific magic items as a player entitlement. So it's optional...that requires other optional features to function. It'd be like a class that got to choose feats (not ASI which optionally could be changed for feats), but a feature that says "choose a feat of your choice." Adding that to a featless game necessarily involves adding feats to the game. In a way that changes the nature of the world.

The existence of an Artificer smuggles in a bunch of other worldbuilding features that were previously optional. But doesn't say it does. Which irritates me.

Note: I allow the artificer, but the design bugs me. I can separate the two.

[Psyren]

But adding Artificer also means adding not only magic items generally, but specific magic items as a player entitlement. So it's optional...that requires other optional features to function. It'd be like a class that got to choose feats (not ASI which optionally could be changed for feats), but a feature that says "choose a feat of your choice." Adding that to a featless game necessarily involves adding feats to the game. In a way that changes the nature of the world.

The existence of an Artificer smuggles in a bunch of other worldbuilding features that were previously optional. But doesn't say it does. Which irritates me.

Note: I allow the artificer, but the design bugs me. I can separate the two.

Yeah, just like if you add Variant Human or Custom Lineage to a featless game that carries implications you will need to sort out. I don't disagree. So... sort them out.

If you want to allow artificer but rein in their toolbox, just ban the Replicate Magic Item infusion. That makes it so the class is still perfectly effective, and keeps your player out of the DMG.

[KorvinStarmast]

The existence of an Artificer smuggles in a bunch of other worldbuilding features that were previously optional. But doesn't say it does. Which irritates me. I have allowed one. Never again.

[Elves]

But adding Artificer also means adding not only magic items generally, but specific magic items as a player entitlement.

The assumption in all the major D&D settings is that magic items are still being created in the world today and that they can be created by mortals. Given that, there has to be some method of magic item crafting available to players. "You can become a master of world-ending magics, but you can never learn to create a magic wand". "Why not? Didn't you just say that wand was created by an elven wizard?" "Uh...reasons". If not a class, it would be a feat or ritual.

You can have a setting where magic items are gifts from the gods or can no longer be made, etc, and artificer wouldn't be a good fit for that setting. But under the default assumptions, PCs will try to find, craft or buy the items they want, because that's what makes sense for them to do. I don't think that's entitlement.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah, just like if you add Variant Human or Custom Lineage to a featless game that carries implications you will need to sort out. I don't disagree. So... sort them out.

If you want to allow artificer but rein in their toolbox, just ban the Replicate Magic Item infusion. That makes it so the class is still perfectly effective, and keeps your player out of the DMG.

Right. I'm not fond of optional rules that have dependencies on other optional rules. As a general rule. Or at least if they do, there should be a big note to DMs up front so they can adapt.

Personally, with the artificer, I'd prefer if it was more of a "mad scientist"/tinkerer. Leave it as a half-caster, but any of the items it makes are special-case things for itself. That work due to the artificer's own idiosyncratic magic. They're not replicating magic items, they're building some contraption that shouldn't work (by any sane standard), but somehow does. Because the artificer infuses it with magic.

I have a version I call the "savant" that's half-built. The idea is that the base is an alchemist whose potions/elixirs/bombs are catalyzed by magic, rather than actual alchemy that anyone else can do. And each one has an obsession--usually something like a mechanical exoskeleton or a souped-up ranged weapon. I think I'll probably shift it to being a "half-caster" with a very specific spell list representing the elixirs and bombs, with some curlicues/modifications (things like "you can make a single-target cantrip a splash weapon X times/SR" or something). Effectively meta-magic, but not really. All alchemical-themed.

But that would require overcoming my congenital laziness, so....


The assumption in all the major D&D settings is that magic items are still being created in the world today and that they can be created by mortals. Given that, there has to be some method of magic item crafting available to players. "You can become a master of world-ending magics, but you can never learn to create a magic wand". "Why not? Didn't you just say that wand was created by an elven wizard?" "Uh...reasons". If not a class, it would be a feat or ritual.

You can have a setting where magic items are gifts from the gods or can no longer be made, etc, and artificer wouldn't be a good fit for that setting. But under the default assumptions, PCs will try to find, craft or buy the items they want, because that's what makes sense for them to do. I don't think that's entitlement.

I don't think that assumption holds. The default is that magic items are rare. And that generally you can't craft magic items at will. The "there are people churning out magic items" idea is specific to Eberron, and Eberron only. Artificers take even Xanathar's crafting rules (which are optional, not core, mind) and goes "yeah, no, you just press a button and a magic item pops out. No special material, no recipe needed. Just time and gold. And not much of that."

[Amnestic]

The assumption in all the major D&D settings is that magic items are still being created in the world today and that they can be created by mortals. Given that, there has to be some method of magic item crafting available to players. "You can become a master of world-ending magics, but you can never learn to create a magic wand". "Why not? Didn't you just say that wand was created by an elven wizard?" "Uh...reasons".

There are two separate sets of rules for doing so in both DMG (pg. 128/129) and Xanathar's (...also page 128/129, weirdly enough).

Both are gated behind 'formulas' which are nebulous things that still end up firmly in the DM's purview though.

[Elves]

The "there are people churning out magic items" idea is specific to Eberron, and Eberron only.
If you look at FR or most well-known items in the game, they were created by mortals. Many even have the creator's name attached. If people can make magic items, PCs can.

You could create a setting where in the ancient past people could do this but no longer, but that's not the default assumption.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If you look at FR or most well-known items in the game, they were created by mortals. Many even have the creator's name attached. If people can make magic items, PCs can.

You could create a setting where in the ancient past people could do this but no longer, but that's not the default assumption.

But most of those are actually unique items. Flametongue? That's an actual weapon by that name. Not a category of effects. Etc. Sure, they were made by mortals at one time, but they're not currently being produced. The default from teh DMG is that magic items are one of
* hoarded by their existing owners and granted as rewards for grand deeds
* found in ruins of bygone years
* crafted by reclusive masters (or Powers), rarely.

I will note (which makes my dislike slightly better) that the quick method (Replicate Magic Item) has severe restrictions (you can't mass produce them, each different item requires a new infusion choice, they go away when the artificer dies). Their "regular, permanent" crafting is simply cheaper and doesn't bypass the need for a recipe (or a special component if you're using Xanathar's guidance). Which means that's still entirely gated behind worldbuilding/DM choice (there's no entitlement to the formulas, after all).

And the part that it goes away when the artificer dies means that most of the existing items can't have been artificer-infused items (and have to be actual, made-by-the-rules items), since most of those famous people aren't still living.

So with that note, my level of dislike goes down from "I'm not sure I'd allow one" to "meh, still not my favorite and I wish they were done differently, but whatever."

I will note that the concept of NPC/PC parity (if anyone can do it, PCs have to be able to and vice versa) is not part of 5e. In fact, the exact opposite is the default. Most NPCs don't have PC class levels; there are things NPCs can do that PCs can never do. And vice versa.

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

I have allowed one. Never again.

Be careful. Once you play with a wizard or cleric you’ll be banning every full caster.

[Morphic tide]

I imagine it's mostly a matter of designer PTSD from the splatbook overload of 3.X and how they couldn't keep themselves from invalidated core 4e, whereas races don't really operate in that space of risking out-moding. The ability to use subclasses for this applies very well, and they'd actually cut out the Maneuvers from the baseline Fighter in late phases of playtesting for... Some reason...

The fact that the race bloat continues with the ever-decreasing the scope of mechanical differences between them makes it much more bothersome. Everyone complains about giving Small races a Strength penalty or species with not one ancient power to their name an Intelligence penalty, nobody complains about week-old Dragons being able to roast a dozen grown men.

And on a larger game design level, inability to use disadvantages guarantees either power creep or blatant redundancy, usually both, because you can never draw a line between two things based on what they're bad at. Eventually, you run into duplicating "special features" of a race, especially with a strict complexity budget like 5e, as one can only do "Can Sword Good" so many ways.

I'll also note that Cosmopolitan Fantasy has a freaking mountain of questions in its establishment. The big one, of course, being demography. More important than the population dynamics is answering how all those races came to be in one place to begin with. How are there three different kinds of Dwarf in one city for several hundred years?

It does not take long for populations to visibly mix, unless something actively prevents that. Those "somethings" include vicious caste systems, expulsion of the other, killing off the other, arriving in such disproportionate numbers that one's characteristics dominate the other's, and generally, one way or another, mean the populations stop co-habitating in few generations.

You need homogenous heartlands for a population and ready travel across long distances to avoid everything capable of interbreeding vanishing into 3rd-edition Mongrelfolk. In other words, the mono-racial cultures are required to "feed" cosmopolitan cultures, and travel times in the range of mere weeks, rather than the months of many D&D settings, to permit that "feeding".

Of course, it is possible to write a setting covering the intermediary period, but then this introduces a pretty severe issue for worldbuilding in that the answer to the initial contact friction becomes immediately relevant and you can't move very far forward before hitting the questions again, especially if you decide to keep relevance of a particular non-homogenous family.

By and large, D&D does not do the homework to support cosmopolitan fantasy. Travel takes too long and is too risky. So race bloat is a problem because it will quickly turn into total-outsider parties who are one and all dramatic outliers for where they're campaigning, or it becomes an incoherent mess where there can't be a logical explanation for how all the peoples involved are present.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I imagine it's mostly a matter of designer PTSD from the splatbook overload of 3.X and how they couldn't keep themselves from invalidated core 4e, whereas races don't really operate in that space of risking out-moding. The ability to use subclasses for this applies very well, and they'd actually cut out the Maneuvers from the baseline Fighter in late phases of playtesting for... Some reason...

The fact that the race bloat continues with the ever-decreasing the scope of mechanical differences between them makes it much more bothersome. Everyone complains about giving Small races a Strength penalty or species with not one ancient power to their name an Intelligence penalty, nobody complains about week-old Dragons being able to roast a dozen grown men.

And on a larger game design level, inability to use disadvantages guarantees either power creep or blatant redundancy, usually both, because you can never draw a line between two things based on what they're bad at. Eventually, you run into duplicating "special features" of a race, especially with a strict complexity budget like 5e, as one can only do "Can Sword Good" so many ways.

I'll also note that Cosmopolitan Fantasy has a freaking mountain of questions in its establishment. The big one, of course, being demography. More important than the population dynamics is answering how all those races came to be in one place to begin with. How are there three different kinds of Dwarf in one city for several hundred years?

It does not take long for populations to visibly mix, unless something actively prevents that. Those "somethings" include vicious caste systems, expulsion of the other, killing off the other, arriving in such disproportionate numbers that one's characteristics dominate the other's, and generally, one way or another, mean the populations stop co-habitating in few generations.

You need homogenous heartlands for a population and ready travel across long distances to avoid everything capable of interbreeding vanishing into 3rd-edition Mongrelfolk. In other words, the mono-racial cultures are required to "feed" cosmopolitan cultures, and travel times in the range of mere weeks, rather than the months of many D&D settings, to permit that "feeding".

Of course, it is possible to write a setting covering the intermediary period, but then this introduces a pretty severe issue for worldbuilding in that the answer to the initial contact friction becomes immediately relevant and you can't move very far forward before hitting the questions again, especially if you decide to keep relevance of a particular non-homogenous family.

By and large, D&D does not do the homework to support cosmopolitan fantasy. Travel takes too long and is too risky. So race bloat is a problem because it will quickly turn into total-outsider parties who are one and all dramatic outliers for where they're campaigning, or it becomes an incoherent mess where there can't be a logical explanation for how all the peoples involved are present.

Or just say that the sub-races are mostly cultural and that interbreeding doesn't really happen. That is, things like tieflings and aasimar and genasi aren't races as much as they are freaks that pop up in mostly human cultures. And things like hill dwarves and mountain dwarves are just different approaches to dwarfing. Not genetically distinct at all.

[Psyren]

Right. I'm not fond of optional rules that have dependencies on other optional rules. As a general rule. Or at least if they do, there should be a big note to DMs up front so they can adapt.

If you mean having magic items, there is a big note to DMs up front. DMG 36 "Tiers of Play" specifies that you're expected to start finding uncommon and even rare items as early as Tier 2.

If you mean creating magic items, no artificer needs those rules, they work just fine with their infusions and whatever magic items you hand out to everyone else.


Personally, with the artificer, I'd prefer if it was more of a "mad scientist"/tinkerer. Leave it as a half-caster, but any of the items it makes are special-case things for itself. That work due to the artificer's own idiosyncratic magic. They're not replicating magic items, they're building some contraption that shouldn't work (by any sane standard), but somehow does. Because the artificer infuses it with magic.

You mean make it so that only they can use their infusions? Hard pass, that's boring. Worse, it actually makes them more unbalanced since they're hoarding all their items for themselves instead of spreading them around.

[KorvinStarmast]

The assumption in all the major D&D settings is that magic items are still being created in the world today and that they can be created by mortals.
Which editions are you referring to?


Given that, there has to be some method of magic item crafting available to players. No there does not have to be such a method. It's optional. (see DMG).

"You can become a master of world-ending magics, but you can never learn to create a magic wand". "Why not? Didn't you just say that wand was created by an elven wizard?"
"Uh...reasons". If not a class, it would be a feat or ritual.
I generally disagree with how you frame this, but I do agree on one aspect: ritual would be a good path forward for the creation of magic items. (But one needs both the formula and the ritual and the exotic ingredients ...)

You can have a setting where magic items are gifts from the gods or can no longer be made, etc, and artificer wouldn't be a good fit for that setting. But under the default assumptions, PCs will try to find, craft or buy the items they want, because that's what makes sense for them to do. I don't think that's entitlement. For this edition, the DMG disagrees with you. (Granted, Xanathar's scheme opens that door a little bit, but it's an optional rule).

Lastly: IMO, for spell caster the crafting of a scroll ought to be a given if they expend the time, materials, and cost.

On a closing note: I admit to a bit of Original Edition/AD&D 1e bias here, but I think that any magic item that an artificer tries to make has to have a chance of failure in the making thereof. But that's a bit of a digression since this is the 5e forum.

[KorvinStarmast]

If you look at FR or most well-known items in the game, they were created by mortals. Many even have the creator's name attached. If people can make magic items, PCs can. No, it does not mean that.
Be careful. Once you play with a wizard or cleric you’ll be banning every full caster. You are deeply and profoundly wrong in the assumptions that you have made to arrive at that caution.

I've been playing with wizards, bards, clerics, sorcerers, warlocks in our party since 2014. I've enjoyed druids mostly in one shots. My first two PCs were clerics. (Light and then Tempest). The only PC class I won't personally play in this edition is wizard. I played plenty of them in previous editions (my first ever PC was a magic user in the original game, he survived to level 9 before the campaign ended) and I want to play anything and everything else in this edition first. (Artificer not being a core class and yadda yadda my other objections). My only 1-20 character in this edition was a lore bard (recently retired, campaign ended). My current favorite PC is my Celestial Warlock, but I have a PbP Arcana Cleric who I am enjoying also.

[Mastikator]

If you look at FR or most well-known items in the game, they were created by mortals. Many even have the creator's name attached. If people can make magic items, PCs can.

You could create a setting where in the ancient past people could do this but no longer, but that's not the default assumption.

D&D 5e has explicit and consistent PC / NPC asymmetry. Just because an NPC can do something doesn't mean a PC can do something, likewise just because a PC can do something doesn't mean an NPC can do something. NPCs are not supposed to have PC levels or PC abilities.

It's entirely the DMs prerogative to decide whether players are allowed to craft magic items, those are optional rules, the artificer getting a discount at level 10 doesn't mean they get that optional feature when the DM already said no.

[Psyren]

No, it does not mean that. You are deeply and profoundly wrong in the assumptions that you have made to arrive at that caution.

I've been playing with wizards, bards, clerics, sorcerers, warlocks in our party since 2014. I've enjoyed druids mostly in one shots. My first two PCs were clerics. (Light and then Tempest). The only PC class I won't personally play in this edition is wizard. I played plenty of them in previous editions (my first ever PC was a magic user in the original game, he survived to level 9 before the campaign ended) and I want to play anything and everything else in this edition first. (Artificer not being a core class and yadda yadda my other objections). My only 1-20 character in this edition was a lore bard (recently retired, campaign ended). My current favorite PC is my Celestial Warlock, but I have a PbP Arcana Cleric who I am enjoying also.

Great CV, but I think his point is that artificers are weaker than all those classes, so your kneejerk banning of the class going forward does not appear to be based on any logical concern.


D&D 5e has explicit and consistent PC / NPC asymmetry. Just because an NPC can do something doesn't mean a PC can do something, likewise just because a PC can do something doesn't mean an NPC can do something. NPCs are not supposed to have PC levels or PC abilities.

It's entirely the DMs prerogative to decide whether players are allowed to craft magic items, those are optional rules, the artificer getting a discount at level 10 doesn't mean they get that optional feature when the DM already said no.

Exactly. And the Artificer works just fine even if crafting is never made available to the PCs.

[KorvinStarmast]

Great CV, but I think his point is that artificers are weaker than all those classes, so your kneejerk banning of the class going forward does not appear to be based on any logical concern.
You are also profoundly wrong. Nothing kneejerk about it. It's running it in game that has taken my initial reservations (I think it fits Eberron, not elsewhere, and we started with the artificer in the last UA before E:RFtLW, then updated it with the official changes, so what we were doing was very much play testing it in our group). Rather than alleviating my initial reservations my experience converted them into sheer distaste.
Your understanding of logic is a failure in this case, given that it is based in sheer ignorance.

[Psyren]

Nothing kneejerk about it. It's running it in game that has taken my reservations (I think it fits eberron, not elsewhere) and rather than alleviating them actually make them turn into sheer distaste.

I'm guessing you're not going to elaborate on what the actual problem was beyond "taste."

[Amnestic]

I think it fits Eberron, not elsewhere,

Did we not just do this in another thread?

If you're in a setting where wizards work, so too do artificers. You can kick and scream about "theme" but the only limitation on theme is the one you and your players are choosing to put on it. Their description makes damn clear they don't need to be magitech steampunk gunslingers and I'm really tired of people implying that they do with this "it only fits in Eberron" stuff.

[KorvinStarmast]

If you're in a setting where wizards work, so too do artificers. . That is a non sequitur: it does not necessarily follow.

[Waazraath]

... I think his point is that artificers are weaker than all those classes...

Just saying, if that's the point it's a darn flawed point. It depends on context (as always) since artificers are pretty spread out between relative weak (alchemist) and damn strong (subclass with extra attack and SS/(optional CBE) or GWM), and in some games their infusions are extremely powerful and in others less so (depending on how a DM deals with magic weapons), and it also depends on what levels we are talking about. But the statement as a general statment, without tied to such a specific context, is simply untrue.

[Amnestic]

That is a non sequitur: it does not necessarily follow.

No, it absolutely does follow. God I'll just quote myself since it does seem the exact same argument that cropped up barely days ago:



Does your setting have magic potions? Then the alchemist fits.
Does your setting have magic armour? Then the armourer fits.
Does your setting have golems or other artificial constructs? Then the battlesmith(/artillerist) fits.
Does your setting have magic rods, wands, or quarterstaffs? Then the artillerist fits.

All official 5e settings contain the above. I would wager the vast majority of homebrew settings will also have all of the above. Some won't, sure. That's fine, I'm an advocate of DMs selectively banning classes/races that don't fit with their worlds. But saying that they don't fit in 'most' settings when they fit into all of the official 5e settings, which will by default serve as templates for many homebrew settings? Ridonk.

Wizards are casters who use their enormous super brains to work out how magic works to cast spells. Artificers are casters who use their enormous super brains to work out how magic works to cast spells on/through items. That specialisation makes them half-casters in return for infusions.


Right here is their description from Tasha's


Artificers use a variety of tools to channel their arcane power. To cast a spell, an artificer might use alchemist's supplies to create a potent elixir, calligrapher's supplies to inscribe a sigil of power, or tinker's tools to craft a temporary charm. The magic of artificers is tied to their tools and their talents, and few other characters can produce the right tool for a job as well as an artificer.


Enchanting items? Wizards do that with Magic Weapon (and Paladins have a whole slew of smite spells). Creating constructs? Wizards do that with Animate Objects, Create Homunculus (Wizard exclusive!) and Create Magen (Wizard exclusive!)." Creating permanent magic things? Well first of all artificers can't do that with infusions - they disappear when they die, for instance - but wizards can literally create fully formed and furnished towers with a ten minute (3rd level!) spell. Cast it every day for a year and it's permanent.

As for using tools to channel their arcane power - I see no reason why doing so is any different conceptually from channelling it through a shiny rock (arcane gem focus, arcane orb focus) or a stick (arcane rod focus, arcane staff focus).

Please, instead of just calling my objections non-sequiturs actually state what your problem is with Artificers beyond vagueries.

[KorvinStarmast]

irrelevant repost
Please, instead of just calling my objections non-sequiturs actually state what your problem is with Artificers beyond vagueries. The existence of wizards does not as you stated necessarily result in the existence of artificers. You have arrived at a conclusion first that artificers do fit, and then worked backwards.
Your argument is void. That you like artificers is irrelevant to why my experience turned me against rather than for during play/play test at the table.

I have expressed various shades of dissatisfaction with the inclusion of the artificer in 5e (outside of Eberron) sufficiently in the past four years on GiTP that I am not wasting my time in regurgitating it to someone who appears to be in transmit-only mode.
To be clear: it's cool that you like them. You do you.
I am in a PbP game with a fellow playgrounder who is playing an artificer and it's working out fine (me a fellow PC - EDIT ah, see Dork_Forge's post below).
I am not going to DM for one ever again: it does not fit my world building at all - I don't owe you any more than that.

[Elves]

D&D 5e has explicit and consistent PC / NPC asymmetry. Just because an NPC can do something doesn't mean a PC can do something, likewise just because a PC can do something doesn't mean an NPC can do something. NPCs are not supposed to have PC levels or PC abilities.
There's a difference between mechanical asymmetry (PC and NPC stats are built differently) and fluff asymmetry (there's an actual in-world difference between PCs and NPCs).

For example, if you tell the PC wizard they can never create magic items -- even though plenty of wizards in the setting are known to have created magic items -- just because they're a PC, that's immersion-breaking and arbitrary. It's like a videogame.

It also doesn't solve the problem. If magic items exist and are created by mortals, the PCs will seek out and buy or steal the items they want.

The idea that magic items can only be gained as gifts from the DM and that PCs can't expect to get the ones they want doesn't really work outside of some specific setting assumptions that none of the default settings share. And I don't think it addresses the actual complaints people have about items in other editions.

[Dork_Forge]

No, it absolutely does follow. God I'll just quote myself since it does seem the exact same argument that cropped up barely days ago:



Right here is their description from Tasha's


Enchanting items? Wizards do that with Magic Weapon (and Paladins have a whole slew of smite spells). Creating constructs? Wizards do that with Animate Objects, Create Homunculus (Wizard exclusive!) and Create Magen (Wizard exclusive!)." Creating permanent magic things? Well first of all artificers can't do that with infusions - they disappear when they die, for instance - but wizards can literally create fully formed and furnished towers with a ten minute (3rd level!) spell. Cast it every day for a year and it's permanent.

As for using tools to channel their arcane power - I see no reason why doing so is any different conceptually from channelling it through a shiny rock (arcane gem focus, arcane orb focus) or a stick (arcane rod focus, arcane staff focus).

Please, instead of just calling my objections non-sequiturs actually state what your problem is with Artificers beyond vagueries.

Conceptually Artificers are very different from just playing a Wizard, summed up in the quoted thread as magitech, and whilst you can point to elements of their abilities existing in the game world, having a PC capable of creating them is a different feeling.

You'd be pretty hard pressed to deny that Artificers don't have a very different feel associated with them, and them existing has world consequences outside of just the separate elements existing.

It poses significant problems for those that don't like the flavour they impart, and handing out semi-permanent magic items can really distort intended encounters.

-An Artificer player (actually playing alongside Korvin's Cleric in a game)

[Amnestic]

Your argument is void.

Stating my argument is void doesn't make it so, I've drawn a clear line of logic with my argument (Artificers aren't necessarily magitech - as quoted from Tasha's directly - and the effects of their class/subclass are directly comparable to aspects of wizard spells, which you do allow), one you've not even put forward an effort to refute instead of simply asserting that it's wrong/void.



I am not going to DM for one ever again: it does not fit my world building at all - I don't owe you any more than that.

You said I'm in transmit-only mode but frankly you've done a not great job of engaging with the people who tried to engage with you.

If you want to share your world though, I'm more than happy to read it and be proven wrong over my thoughts.


Conceptually Artificers are very different from just playing a Wizard, summed up in the quoted thread as magitech,

Are magic sigils magitech now? Are potions? Is a magic sword magitech? Are all magic items magitech? No, of course not, that's not what people mean when they use the term.

Again, I quoted the artificer description from Tasha's. Artificers can be magitech but they need not be magitech. Some examples Tasha's provides but others include:
Weaving charms/voodoo dolls made out of wood and enchanting them.
Scribing scrolls and casting from them.
Enchanting your blacksmith hammer as your spell focus to channel your magic through.
Painting magic pictures that spring to life. (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/be/OkamiNTSCcoverFinal.jpg)

Are these 'magitech' or are they all totally normal things you wouldn't be surprised to see in a D&D fantasy setting?


and whilst you can point to elements of their abilities existing in the game world, having a PC capable of creating them is a different feeling.

...but as I noted, Wizards can already do the same things. What can an artificer do that wizards cannot? I guess magic armour (though wizards can make their own forcefields in the form of Mage Armour and Shield) but unless you're also banning forge clerics too, that doesn't really track?


You'd be pretty hard pressed to deny that Artificers don't have a very different feel associated with them, and them existing has world consequences outside of just the separate elements existing.

No, I wouldn't be hard pressed to deny that. Please state what world consequences derive from artificers being able to temporarily enchant objects to become magical that other characters who can also do that does not create.


and handing out semi-permanent magic items can really distort intended encounters.


There is never a time when I'm worried more about an artificer skewing balance than a wizard, cleric, druid, or bard (or potentially paladin).

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm more than happy to read it and be proven wrong over my thoughts. That has nothing to do with it. It's about a flawed premise conclusion chain.

I have previously pointed out that artificer's alleged place in the "generic" D&D multiverse (whatever the heck that is) steps all over the wizard/transmutation school, and that artificer as a sub class of wizard seems to me a better conceptual fit. I am aware that folks who have fallen in love with the artificer for two decades in other editions are not going to receive that well.
Put another way: it's bloat, and always has been, just as sorcerer was bloat in 3e.

In other threads, and maybe a bit in this one, a variety of discussion has centered around race/setting fits.

Class fits are similar. Based on my digestion of the E:RftLW (and its predecessor which I had as my source before E:RftLW was released) artificer is organic to Eberron. It feels right there (to me). I can see how it fits organically into that world. I like the Eberron/Warforged fit but do not allow Warforged OCs in my world. (While I do not care for the shape changer PC race at all, regardless of attempts at fit, that's a separate issue).

[Psyren]

I am not going to DM for one ever again: it does not fit my world building at all - I don't owe you any more than that.

That's sad to hear, but certainly your prerogative.

I'm glad to be playing at a table where they are welcome :smallsmile: I'm having a lot of fun with my Artillerist in my campaign so far.



It poses significant problems for those that don't like the flavour they impart, and handing out semi-permanent magic items can really distort intended encounters.


Even if i bought the bold claim - which I absolutely don't - I'd rather address this at the infusion level than throw the class out with the bathwater. (As I noted above, Replicate Magic Item is usually the one that might sneak up on a DM since it contains a breadth of options they may not realize are included.)

[Amnestic]

That has nothing to do with it. It's about a flawed premise conclusion chain.

I have previously pointed out that artificer's alleged place in the "generic" D&D multiverse (whatever the heck that is) steps all over the wizard/transmutation school,

That doesn't gel for me for two reasons:

1- If you're referring specifically to transmuter wizards, they're really not that similar at all either mechanically or thematically. Artificers are tool casters (whatever that might mean for the individual character - I gave examples above) and transmuter wizards "wield the raw stuff of creation and learn to alter both physical forms and mental qualities" which...in so much as they are using magic to change the features of something, sure, but that's such a high level abstract statement you can apply the same thing to evocation wizards (who use fireballs to alter physical forms to burned crisps and mental qualities to dead). Polymorph isn't even on the artificer spell list, and that's so core to the concept of a transmuter wizard they get it in their spellbook (and 1 special cast of it every short rest) for free.

2- Classes can share thematic space with subclasses from other classes just fine, and some subclasses can share thematic (and sometimes mechanical) concepts with subclasses from other classes without any real issue.

A non-exhaustive set of examples:
Wizards - Arcana Cleric
Druids - Nature Cleric
Wizard (Bladesinger) - Eldritch Knight
(Hunter) Rangers* - Scout Rogue
Draconic Monk - Draconic Sorcerer
Horizon Walker Ranger - Oath of Watchers Paladin
Arcane Trickster Rogue with a bow - Arcane Archer Fighter
Archfey Warlock - Fey Wanderer Ranger

*post-Tasha's at least.

The idea that once a single niche has been carved out by a (sub)class it can never be approached again by any other (sub)class seems incredibly limiting from a design and thematic space.

In other threads, and maybe a bit in this one, a variety of discussion has centered around race/setting fits.


Based on my digestion of the E:RftLW (and its predecessor which I had as my source before E:RftLW was released) artificer is organic to Eberron.

Since they originated (or at least, became most popularised) in Eberron it's no great surprise that they feel so at home there, but stating they don't fit elsewhere is, for the reasons I've laid out previously, shortsighted. I understand why people have the concept of them as "magitech only", but that's not what they are. Or at least, not what they need to be.

[Morphic tide]

Or just say that the sub-races are mostly cultural and that interbreeding doesn't really happen. That is, things like tieflings and aasimar and genasi aren't races as much as they are freaks that pop up in mostly human cultures. And things like hill dwarves and mountain dwarves are just different approaches to dwarfing. Not genetically distinct at all.
*looks at American ethnogenisis* Sure, if you want your setting's history to be driven entirely by Divine generation of all innate difference or make a mockery of the entire concept of race-as-mechanic by bolting back on visible demographic differences without actually giving them any in-game significance... There are 6-foot tall pale bearded men at the tip of Chile who share the staggering majority of ancestry with the stereotypical "Red Skins" and the Inuit alike, as are all descendants of ancient Siberian locals.

It does not take that long for founder effect and selection pressures to generate visible divergences, and fantasy timelines usually compress this process dramatically and provide initial variation far more prone to generate significant sub-speciation. Additionally, there are multiple races, three right in the SRD, specifically predicated on the intermixing of traits between races. Either your Tieflings, Half-Elves, and Half-Orcs are sterile, you ban some core rulebook races, or the progression into Mongrelfolk must be answered another way.

Anything involving "They can't interbreed" has quite the pile of problems to actually being cosmopolitan, because now you have introduced biological imperatives to Ghettoize, because truly intermixed populations flat out die from collapsing birthrates. Cosmopolitan Fantasy is nonsense, having cultures that are meaningfully different co-habitate means inevitably running into value system friction, and when those cultures are largely tied to what are in many regards separate species any care to portray realistic outcomes will quickly arrive at blood-feuds.

Biologically and culturally homogenous populations have been the standard in IRL history because the travel to permit otherwise has been very limited. The moment you leave the immediate influence of a port, you are in conditions that D&D rules have always dictated be weeks-long journeys in the absence of extensive use of magic, the exact conditions that sustain insulated populations which homogenize for lack of external inputs or the resources to sustain separations.

Cosmopolitanism really only exists with very easy travel. Until the vast road systems of modern times, this was fundamentally localized. In anything less than the omnipresent automobile's travel convenience, you're only getting the demographic inputs for starting it up in major cities or ports, which are usually synonymous in those conditions. And it's fundamentally temporary unless, again, something forces a lack of assimilation.

[Psyren]

Since they originated (or at least, became most popularised) in Eberron it's no great surprise that they feel so at home there, but stating they don't fit elsewhere is, for the reasons I've laid out previously, shortsighted. I understand why people have the concept of them as "magitech only", but that's not what they are. Or at least, not what they need to be.

I would laugh my posterior off if WotC made a "Runescriber" class with all of the same mechanics, and some of the folks who claim to despise Artificer's fluff flocked to it.

[Phhase]

the baggage of requiring a successful, non divine creator in the way that warforged tend to do. That is assuming we’re not talking about a special snowflake for whom the warforged stat block is a good fit.

Personally, I don't find it too difficult to flense Warforged of setting specific nature. Golems exist, questions of intelligence and soul are all up to opinion and craftsmanship. Plus, previous editions have plenty of creatures that are explicitly golems, but nonetheless posses intelligence.

Besides, what's wrong with a divine origin for warforged as opposed to a mundane one? A metal-god or a hepheastus expy sound cool.


handing out semi-permanent magic items can really distort intended encounters.

How d'you mean "intended encounter"?

Look, noone's saying the DM has to memorize everything in every book. But at a certain point, you've gotta learn what your players have access to and just git gud at encounter design. Besides, as long as it's not an overriding running theme, isn't distorting an encounter with your class abilities...just called playing that class effectively? Just look at what other classes can do, like wizard. How long do you need to spend flying each day for it to make a big difference? And if he answer's "not that long", then why does it matter if the flight is from fly or winged boots? One's concentration, the other's attunement, there's always tradeoffs. And at the end of the day, both recharge.

[Lord Raziere]

Did we not just do this in another thread?

If you're in a setting where wizards work, so too do artificers. You can kick and scream about "theme" but the only limitation on theme is the one you and your players are choosing to put on it. Their description makes damn clear they don't need to be magitech steampunk gunslingers and I'm really tired of people implying that they do with this "it only fits in Eberron" stuff.

Indeed. other things that Artificers can be:
-weaver
-puppeteers
-blacksmiths
-alchemists
-potter
-glassblower
-winemaker
-stonemason
-woodcarver

or you can fluff their inventions as them just making things that they make deals with magical spirits to possess and inhabit, kind of like a shaman. no actual engineering or science need be involved. heck, you can could make an artificer be from tribe in the wilderness making stuff out of hunted animal bone, pelts and stuff they gather from the forest. your power armor? could just be this sick bear pelt and head you slayed once to prove that you could, complete with bear claws to be your thunder gauntlets. Alchemist can literally be any profession that makes food or drink. your steel defender can just be an animated statue you carved or a puppet, or a reanimated stitched together frankenstein creation....

skies the limits.

[Mastikator]

There's a difference between mechanical asymmetry (PC and NPC stats are built differently) and fluff asymmetry (there's an actual in-world difference between PCs and NPCs).

For example, if you tell the PC wizard they can never create magic items -- even though plenty of wizards in the setting are known to have created magic items -- just because they're a PC, that's immersion-breaking and arbitrary. It's like a videogame.

It also doesn't solve the problem. If magic items exist and are created by mortals, the PCs will seek out and buy or steal the items they want.

The idea that magic items can only be gained as gifts from the DM and that PCs can't expect to get the ones they want doesn't really work outside of some specific setting assumptions that none of the default settings share. And I don't think it addresses the actual complaints people have about items in other editions.
Ok but then how do you deal with improved pact weapon, or the magic weapon spell, or sacred weapon from paladin of devotion? Or any other numerous class abilities that allow PCs to make magic weapons?

Also every official WotC setting has artificers and magic items crafted by mortals. What you do with your personal one is up to you and you can ban any class or race you want, but that's a you thing, not a general D&D thing.

[MoiMagnus]

If you look at FR or most well-known items in the game, they were created by mortals. Many even have the creator's name attached. If people can make magic items, PCs can.

You could create a setting where in the ancient past people could do this but no longer, but that's not the default assumption.

It's not that hard to justify with fluff a "PC can't but NPCs can". If NPCs literally take years to craft a single magical item no PC part of a standard campaign will ever do so, because the BBEG will destroy the world before. Or if it take a few decade of training to be able to start to learn how to make the simplest ones (training not included in any of the available PC classes and backgrounds) but once you have that training it doesn't takes a lot of time so NPC can create magic items reasonably fast but no PC will be able to do it except maybe in their epilogue at the end of the campaign.

(And you can add similar fluff to every NPC exclusive thing. Legendary actions and lair action? Sure, when your character return as a boss fight for the next campaign, he will have passed decades mastering the technics necessary to have legendary actions, and to magically link his lair to his soul allowing him to control the traps)

[KorvinStarmast]

Personally, I don't find it too difficult to flense Warforged of setting specific nature. Golems exist, questions of intelligence and soul are all up to opinion and craftsmanship. Plus, previous editions have plenty of creatures that are explicitly golems, but nonetheless posses intelligence. Setting specific origins tend to feel/fit better. (I won't go on my "we need 5e Dark Sun" grumpiness though)

Look, noone's saying the DM has to memorize everything in every book. But at a certain point, you've gotta learn what your players have access to and just git gud at encounter design.
As with 3rd party content, dragon magazine 'good ideas' and UA that is just sloppy, the amount of what PhoenixPhyre refers to as "DM overhead" at some point becomes an obstacle. Each DM has their own threshold on that. (Example, in the game we have with Max Wilson, who is a very good and creative DM, Tasha's stuff simply isn't there. This is no way stops us from enjoying the game).

It's not that hard to justify with fluff a "PC can't but NPCs can". If NPCs literally take years to craft a single magical item no PC part of a standard campaign will ever do so, because the BBEG will destroy the world before. Or if it take a few decade of training to be able to start to learn how to make the simplest ones (training not included in any of the available PC classes and backgrounds) but once you have that training it doesn't takes a lot of time so NPC can create magic items reasonably fast but no PC will be able to do it except maybe in their epilogue at the end of the campaign. Most of how I see it in terms of magic item creation, thanks for articulating that. With that said, depending on how you pace the campaign, you can have weeks and months of down time; that's very much linked to how one does world building and campaign implementation. (As an example, three and a half in-game years passed during my longest running Empire of the Petal throne game - there was quite a bit of travel on land and sea, and political things changing in various places (Not just in the Empire but in neighboring nations) during that campaign) and the characters were about 6th or 7th level when RL ended that group's cohesion: I got assigned half way across the country due to being in the Navy.

[Xervous]

Personally, I don't find it too difficult to flense Warforged of setting specific nature. Golems exist, questions of intelligence and soul are all up to opinion and craftsmanship. Plus, previous editions have plenty of creatures that are explicitly golems, but nonetheless posses intelligence.

Besides, what's wrong with a divine origin for warforged as opposed to a mundane one? A metal-god or a hepheastus expy sound cool.


Again, we’re assuming there’s a moderate deal of coherency being expected in these cases, disregard for silly D&D.

The question is not whether we can strip off setting specific details, it’s how much you need to warp the current setting to get a race of human sized living constructs that is recognized as being part of society. Some people want to play D&D, not act out Asimov scripts where humanity is conflicted over how to regard these intelligent entities it is capable of creating outside of the normal natural pathways.

If humanity is not capable of producing these constructs then you need a maker, and you know for sure that the setting will be asking why the constructs were made if it doesn’t readily supply an answer.

Eberron cheekily bypasses the question of warforged longevity by establishing them as a recent product. If they’re recent in your setting they need an obvious maker, which then necessitates the questions of “will there be more?” and “why were they made now?” If they’re ancient and relatively common that also puts a great burden on the setting.

The problem with warforged is when they are a species rather than individual mad science experiments. You can lock your Frankenstein creation up in a lab or a backstory, but place countless copies of them throughout the setting and it’s a totally different feel. One guy with a one of a kind blasting wand in medieval times has a different feel from Napoleonic Wars except with wands instead of guns. So too does unique vs ubiquitous warforged. Introduce a single warforged as an oddity in the party and the world can react as it normally would to the weird. Make the weird normal and you’ve got to redefine normal and weird for the whole setting.

[KorvinStarmast]

Again, we’re assuming there’s a moderate deal of coherency being expected in these cases, disregard for silly D&D. Setting coherency is all that one asks for, which precludes FR unfortunately (IMO).

The question is not whether we can strip off setting specific details, it’s how much you need to warp the current setting to get a race of human sized living constructs that is recognized as being part of society. Some people want to play D&D, not act out Asimov scripts where humanity is conflicted over how to regard these intelligent entities it is capable of creating outside of the normal natural pathways. {snip rest of post} That was a very nice post. Thanks for putting into words a good bit of what I am feeling about warforged. :smallcool:

[Psyren]

Again, we’re assuming there’s a moderate deal of coherency being expected in these cases, disregard for silly D&D.

The question is not whether we can strip off setting specific details, it’s how much you need to warp the current setting to get a race of human sized living constructs that is recognized as being part of society. Some people want to play D&D, not act out Asimov scripts where humanity is conflicted over how to regard these intelligent entities it is capable of creating outside of the normal natural pathways.

I don't disagree that transplanting a whole society from one setting to another can be a tall order. But it's not necessary to go to those lengths for a PC hero. Warforged are actually one of the easiest individuals to move to other D&D settings, because every single one already has golems and other constructs in it, and the vast majority of people in those settings are unlikely to think they know of every variety that exists. So long as the Warforged is accompanied by one or more of the other PCs, they're highly likely to be written off as a creation or attendant to one of them, even when they display signs of intelligence or being affected by things like psychic and poison effects. Someone from a mage guild or similar might take an interest but that's unlikely to come up often.


Ok but then how do you deal with improved pact weapon, or the magic weapon spell, or sacred weapon from paladin of devotion? Or any other numerous class abilities that allow PCs to make magic weapons?

Also every official WotC setting has artificers and magic items crafted by mortals. What you do with your personal one is up to you and you can ban any class or race you want, but that's a you thing, not a general D&D thing.

Agreed. And again, infusions aren't even magic item creation in the true sense, they are long-lasting but ultimately impermanent. You can allow that mechanic without opening the floodgates to PC crafting.

[Xervous]

I don't disagree that transplanting a whole society from one setting to another can be a tall order. But it's not necessary to go to those lengths for a PC hero. Warforged are actually one of the easiest individuals to move to other D&D settings, because every single one already has golems and other constructs in it, and the vast majority of people in those settings are unlikely to think they know of every variety that exists. So long as the Warforged is accompanied by one or more of the other PCs, they're highly likely to be written off as a creation or attendant to one of them, even when they display signs of intelligence or being affected by things like psychic and poison effects. Someone from a mage guild or similar might take an interest but that's unlikely to come up often.


So in other words a one-of snowflake that doesn’t warp the setting. Am I fine with a lone oddity that doesn’t bend the setting over with silicone and lube? Yes. I’ve already conceded that the existence of one thing with a warforged stat block and appearance comes down to basic matters of themes and taste. “Can I play a thri-kreen and where are the rest of my people?” has far simpler coherent answers than the same question posed for Warforged as a species. You’re better off asking the GM to play a warforged as if you were asking to play a one-of homebrewed creature, and that’s telling.

Why does my phone keep trying to suggest they-Karen

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

Again, we’re assuming there’s a moderate deal of coherency being expected in these cases, disregard for silly D&D.

The question is not whether we can strip off setting specific details, it’s how much you need to warp the current setting to get a race of human sized living constructs that is recognized as being part of society. Some people want to play D&D, not act out Asimov scripts where humanity is conflicted over how to regard these intelligent entities it is capable of creating outside of the normal natural pathways.

You don’t require an Asimovian level of exploration of this, however.

All D&D published settings have a degree of global cosmopolitanism: while exotic, in Faerun, Krynn, Oerth, Mystara, Athas, etc, it’s not considered terribly bizarre to have kobolds, goblins, 3 kinds of elves, 2 kinds of dwarves, orcs, halflings, merfolk, dryads and more cohabiting a region the size of France. Double that because most settings also assume an vertical mirror of that region in the under dark, triple that for the shadowfell.

That means even a sheltered peasant has likely heard tales of all sorts of different sapient beings: the same way someone from the British Isles may have heard of Brownies, Sprites, Fairies, Elves, Leprechauns, Red Caps, Goblins, etc.

A warforged is simply another one of these beings and could be received with wonder, xenophobia, disbelief, suspicion, casual indifference the exact same way a dwarf might be recieved.


If humanity is not capable of producing these constructs then you need a maker, and you know for sure that the setting will be asking why the constructs were made if it doesn’t readily supply an answer.

I agree, though the answers can be myriad and simple:

The two most obvious D&D answers would be “The Gods” or “The Ancients”. D&D often defaults to the notion of past Golden Ages possessing powers beyond the abilities of the present day. That’s all you need for any sapient people, really.


Eberron cheekily bypasses the question of warforged longevity by establishing them as a recent product. If they’re recent in your setting they need an obvious maker, which then necessitates the questions of “will there be more?” and “why were they made now?” If they’re ancient and relatively common that also puts a great burden on the setting.

I reject the premise that this is a great burden, nor that you require an immediate answer to either question.

When you discover a colony of Myconoids underground for the first time or a band of orc raiders or a caravan of halflings, do you demand these questions? I don’t think you do.

Will there be more Myconoids? Why are there Myconoids? A god or a Wizard made them.

This isn’t burdensome at all.


The problem with warforged is when they are a species rather than individual mad science experiments. You can lock your Frankenstein creation up in a lab or a backstory, but place countless copies of them throughout the setting and it’s a totally different feel. One guy with a one of a kind blasting wand in medieval times has a different feel from Napoleonic Wars except with wands instead of guns. So too does unique vs ubiquitous warforged. Introduce a single warforged as an oddity in the party and the world can react as it normally would to the weird. Make the weird normal and you’ve got to redefine normal and weird for the whole setting.

I’ll reiterate: all published settings are already weird: fungus people, centuries old beings travelling and living with some not even two decades old, beings from other dimensions, sapient undead, it’s all weird.

How a warforged colony or even several warforged colonies across the globe changes the setting differently from, say, a colony of vampires or a colony of tieflings in anything but a superficial way doesn’t seem clear to me.

Certainly you have to worldbuild, but that’s the burden of every non-human people you populate your world with. Dwarves and Elves demand explanations as detailed as a warforged.

And that sounds like a great thing: answering questions of ecology and origin is the fun part of world building. If you aren’t interested in that part of play, then don’t put colonies of warforged in your setting, or simply have a god turn a bunch of villagers into warforged and call it a day: gods require no explanation, they are whimsical and mysterious and their designs are beyond the minds of mortals.

Olidimarra simply finding them hilarious is enough.

[Psyren]

So in other words a one-of snowflake that doesn’t warp the setting. Am I fine with a lone oddity that doesn’t bend the setting over with silicone and lube? Yes. I’ve already conceded that the existence of one thing with a warforged stat block and appearance comes down to basic matters of themes and taste. “Can I play a thri-kreen and where are the rest of my people?” has far simpler coherent answers than the same question posed for Warforged as a species. You’re better off asking the GM to play a warforged as if you were asking to play a one-of homebrewed creature, and that’s telling.

Putting your... colorful... imagery aside, I don't see a warforged character as equivalent to a "one-off homebrewed creature." Being a published race, Warforged would have gone through a lot more mechanical balancing, playtesting, and outright being used at hundreds if not thousands more tables than any homebrew. And even on the fluff side, there have been theories and proposals to get them to fit in other settings for as long as they've existed, even going back to 3.5.



I reject the premise that this is a great burden, nor that you require an immediate answer to either question.

+1

[KorvinStarmast]

Being a published race, Warforged For a particular setting...:smallwink: FWIW, I offered a "how did a warforged get here?" answer to that question (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/131896/22566), which folds into Xervous' point about a one off (I think) absent the winter-precipitation-descent reference.
There are a variety of ways to make it coherent even if warforged are not native to one's setting, check with your local world builder/DM.

[HPisBS]

Agreed. And again, infusions aren't even magic item creation in the true sense, they are long-lasting but ultimately impermanent. You can allow that mechanic without opening the floodgates to PC crafting.

So what would you give them at level 10 to make up for scrapping the feature that's specifically about letting them be good / efficient at crafting?

[Psyren]

So what would you give them at level 10 to make up for scrapping the feature that's specifically about making them good / efficient at crafting?

Nothing*. Not only is the other half of that ability (+1 attunement slot) still useful, Artificers play perfectly fine even at a table that doesn't allow magic item creation by PCs at all.

*Meaning, I wouldn't "scrap the feature." It would just be one bullet instead of two.

[Xervous]

Again, we’re assuming there’s a moderate deal of coherency being expected in these cases, disregard for silly D&D.


You don’t require an Asimovian level of exploration of this, however.
...
And that sounds like a great thing: answering questions of ecology and origin is the fun part of world building. If you aren’t interested in that part of play, then don’t put colonies of warforged in your setting, or simply have a god turn a bunch of villagers into warforged and call it a day: gods require no explanation, they are whimsical and mysterious and their designs are beyond the minds of mortals.

Olidimarra simply finding them hilarious is enough.

By all means disregard the scoping of the statement and agree with me.

You can play silly D&D. Most of the default settings are in the ballpark of silly D&D. For the given case of a world that is crafted under stricter requirements a request to implement something outside the norm demands more of the setting the further it stands from the norm, and again for how broad its influence may be. Remember, we’re not here to make a case for why they could be included. It’s about the limits of the setting to absorb the changes and still satisfy the players’ intents (counting GM as a player).

Kitchen sink it is, Faerun doesn’t even notice their introduction. A given setting will or won’t easily absorb a given new race, those matters are easily settled. When it comes to homebrew settings each nonstandard species presents some degree of difficulty for integrating into various settings. Warforged, in all their nonstandard peculiarities, have more points for potential conflict that reduces their chances of a successful integration into a randomly chosen setting. Again, this is specifically the subset of homebrew settings that has stricter requirements on coherency than the typical D&D setting. Yes there will be some whose narrow band of tolerance allows Warforged in without a ripple. All I’ve said is that Warforged are far more likely to distort such settings when forced in alongside the degree of justification said settings have for every species.

[Amnestic]

You can play silly D&D. Most of the default settings are in the ballpark of silly D&D.

Is it 'silly' if it's the standard?

[Psyren]

Is it 'silly' if it's the standard?

I think "Silly D&D" = "any form of D&D Xervous doesn't like."

[Xervous]

Is it 'silly' if it's the standard?

Do you have any other suggestions for succinctly highlighting the differences between the general kitchen sinks that D&D presents and player made settings crafted under stricter requirements on theme and composition?


I think "Silly D&D" = "any form of D&D Xervous doesn't like."

So spreadsheet business simulator is silly, dating simulator is silly, but murder mysteries are not? It seems I’ve merely chosen a term you don’t like and that’s led you to perceive malevolence in this faceless, soundless void that is the Internet.

[Amnestic]

Do you have any other suggestions for succinctly highlighting the differences between the general kitchen sinks that D&D presents and player made settings crafted under stricter requirements on theme and composition?

Standard vs. Restricted seems entirely reasonable to me.

[KorvinStarmast]

Standard vs. Restricted seems entirely reasonable to me. Which fits into Incoherent vs Coherent (to borrow from Ron Edwards/The Forge in a slightly out of context manner).
As a follow on to that thought, I found that AD&D 2e's attempts at making settings that fit a theme to be commendable.
(Dark Sun in particular, though I suppose Spelljammer was similar but not enough experience to affirm).

If Xervous is equating FR with silly I tend to agree.

(I find Dragonlance silly for different reasons, but that's as much to do with the novels as anything done in producing AD&D content).

[Amnestic]

Which fits into Incoherent vs Coherent

Seems pretty dismissive to state that all the official 5e settings are incoherent while only yours and other similarly restricted ones are 'coherent'. I do not think that such an assessment is accurate.

[MoiMagnus]

Seems pretty dismissive to state that all the official 5e settings are incoherent while only yours and other similarly restricted ones are 'coherent'. I do not think that such an assessment is accurate.

The "restrictive" you suggested was also reasonably dismissive. It's not the goal of those settings to be restricted, it's merely one of the means to obtain more coherence, both thematically and in term of internal consistency (and as such, not every kind of restriction would make sense).

I agree that putting a "incoherent VS coherent" is both kind of dismissive for one side and idealist for the other (we don't even have fully coherent models of our world, so as long as a fictive world tries to copy our world in some ways, there will be incoherences), and that it would be more truthful to have "standard coherence VS stricter coherence", but the scale of coherence is IMO not a bad one as it capture (one of) the goals of those settings.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Seems pretty dismissive to state that all the official 5e settings are incoherent while only yours and other similarly restricted ones are 'coherent'. I do not think that such an assessment is accurate.

To be fair, there can be some level of objectivity in this statement, if there's a general agreement on what a setting is aiming to be (or stated to be by its designers) you can make comparisons between what it does and what it aims to do. If it has aspects that are wildly out of line with its intended goals it could objectively be called incoherent.

With that said, I tend to see many arguments aren't all that objective or claim that a shift in design intention is blatantly incoherent rather than something changing. The latter is a fairly common complaint for settings that have been consistently maintained and they're compared to settings that have not and as such have not seen any recent change to be called "incoherent" for.

FR suffers from being a setting they choose to maintain, thus it will often see drastic change to match current design shifts. I don't think it's all that incoherent when viewed through the lens of 5e exclusively, but it's always inevitably met with "but it was like this in X edition" and it being different years later is labeled as inconsistency.

[KorvinStarmast]

Seems pretty dismissive to state that all the official 5e settings are incoherent while only yours and other similarly restricted ones are 'coherent'. I do not think that such an assessment is accurate. Hardly. The FR problem, as a setting, is that it has become one of 'kitchen sink' additive stacking of stuff that don't grow from the ground up.
Granted, WoTC did try to make it all more coherent and a bit more organic with the 4e re set, but that's irrelevant to 5e.

If, for example, one runs a world based in Theros without just dumping stuff from Theros into FR the coherence improves.

[Amnestic]

Unclear why the focus is solely on FR when there's more than one 5e setting - sure, FR's the go-to for adventures, but since Eberron already came up re: artificer/warforged one could quite easily point at that, especially since it's (arguably) the second most prevalent setting this edition. Is it incoherent? I wouldn't say so, and I'd wager to say that it's probably more coherent than most homebrew settings, yes, including yours, whomever is reading this (including me, since I wrote it).

I don't have a problem calling FR incoherent. I have a problem with saying that the difference between "standard" 5e settings (that is, the official ones), and "homebrew" ones with restrictions is that of coherency vs. incoherency. Just as I had a problem with calling them "silly DnD".

Find a better word than 'restricted' if that tickles your sensibilities but branding the official settings globally as "silly" and "incoherent" is...well, silly.

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

By all means disregard the scoping of the statement and agree with me.

I haven’t, however.

I take all my suggestions seriously. Including a trickster god pulling a trick.

To reject trickster deities in “serious” D&D (by your vague standards) is to reject the majority of all fantasy and mythology. An interesting opinion, but not a serious one.


You can play silly D&D.

I certainly do. I also play “serious” D&D. What I’ve proposed is of the “serious” variety.



Most of the default settings are in the ballpark of silly D&D.

No, they aren’t. All of the default settings take themselves fairly seriously.

I now question what you mean by “silly” D&D. I fear, under scrutiny, no published D&D product, isn’t silly by your seemingly narrow standards.



For the given case of a world that is crafted under stricter requirements a request to implement something outside the norm demands more of the setting the further it stands from the norm, and again for how broad its influence may be. Remember, we’re not here to make a case for why they could be included. It’s about the limits of the setting to absorb the changes and still satisfy the players’ intents (counting GM as a player).

Precisely, which is why you must consider the nature of the world. No D&D world is founded in evolutionary biology. They are worlds of magically created creatures, created by Gods and Mortals, in a kaleidoscope of expressions.

Worlds which are incredibly coherent presentations of what a magically fashioned reality would likely entail.

These “requirements” you speak of are the requirements that permit gods, wizards and a multiverse of some fashion. These are serious requirements, and create serious settings that have been enjoyed and explored by players for decades.


Kitchen sink it is.

Not necessarily. I don’t consider Greek, Abrahamic or Norse mythology a kitchen sink setting, and they certainly tolerate beings like the warforged, and far stranger.

Nor would I consider Krynn or Athas kitchen sink settings, and they too can tolerate warforged without any burden.




When it comes to homebrew settings each nonstandard species presents some degree of difficulty for integrating

Perhaps your heartbreaker hack of D&D struggles. I’ve never had an issue integrating Warforged into my settings.

In one, they are cursed elves who used forbidden magics in a desperate last stand to become soldiers against the dwarven and orcish hordes that revolted within and collapsed the gnomish hegemony after their mechanical god ascended and left their integrated machines useless. Others can be cursed by this revenant magic as well. (This setting is sparsely populated, low magic setting, but once was a global society ruled by gnomes which presents most magic in ancient and dangerous ruins)

In another, they are like the dwarves of Tolkien, a forbidden species created by a god who values arts and crafts but permitted by the matriarch of the gods and now beloved as the makers of great and beautiful works, have their own nations and are members of most cosmopolitan societies. (This is a high magic global magic punk setting)

In a third, they are simply constructs with varying degrees of sapience and no coherent culture, though they can be found in small clusters cohabiting in different fashions. (This is a more classic sword and sorcery setting)

I take them all seriously and they are a coherent part of those settings, one of which existed prior to 3rd Ed.


Warforged, in all their nonstandard peculiarities, have more points for potential conflict that reduces their chances of a successful integration into a randomly chosen setting.

Warforged are no more peculiar than the sleepless, immortal, magical elves. If you can integrate elves, I don’t see why you can’t integrate Warforged.




Again, this is specifically the subset of homebrew settings that has stricter requirements on coherency than the typical D&D setting. Yes there will be some whose narrow band of tolerance allows Warforged in without a ripple. All I’ve said is that Warforged are far more likely to distort such settings when forced in alongside the degree of justification said settings have for every species.

It seems you’re discussing a very narrow band of Heartbreaker Hacks of D&D. This is such a corner case, I don’t think it warrants much consideration in the question being posed by OP.

In D&D, Warforged are quite coherent and do not strain the settings that have Wizards and Gods who make beings all the time.

[Anymage]

On the one hand, I'm a fan of narratively tight settings and throwing in whole kitchen sinks of mythology does wind up feeling sloppy. Even using wizards or gods as an excuse makes certain statements about how active they are at mucking about in the natural order of things, which makes certain campaign statements right there.

On the other hand it's vanishingly unlikely that I'll use every published monster, and published monsters say a lot more about the world's population than published PC races. Beholders and owlbears make certain implicit assumptions about the world, and they both come from the initial MM. What does or does not get used depends on what the group overall wants thematically, much more than what does or does not have published PC stats. If the group wants something narratively tighter and more grounded, they'll likely do that without many restrictions. If they want to do wacky and/or cosmopolitan, roll with that.

[Psyren]

Seems pretty dismissive to state that all the official 5e settings are incoherent while only yours and other similarly restricted ones are 'coherent'. I do not think that such an assessment is accurate.

This.


To be fair, there can be some level of objectivity in this statement, if there's a general agreement on what a setting is aiming to be (or stated to be by its designers) you can make comparisons between what it does and what it aims to do. If it has aspects that are wildly out of line with its intended goals it could objectively be called incoherent.

I can't think of a single published setting that is "wildly out of line with its intended goals" so this is academic at best. No, not even FR. Sure they make changes to things like the magic system when the edition changes, but the fundamentals of the setting (yay elves, boo orcs/drow, yay Harpers, boo Zhents et cetera) don't.


Hardly. The FR problem, as a setting, is that it has become one of 'kitchen sink' additive stacking of stuff that don't grow from the ground up.

Feature, not bug. Settings like Faerun and Golarion - high fantasy, high magic kitchen sinks that can accommodate most mechanical features of the game and tell a wide variety of stories and genres within a single world - are valuable in their own right. You may not like them, or see them as "problems," but plenty of WotC's audience disagree.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I can't think of a single published setting that is "wildly out of line with its intended goals" so this is academic at best. No, not even FR. Sure they make changes to things like the magic system when the edition changes, but the fundamentals of the setting (yay elves, boo orcs/drow, yay Harpers, boo Zhents et cetera) don't.

I didn't say that personally though there was either, it's just a way to view this in a way that could be objective. The general agreement seems to be "FR is kitchen sink DND" and broad design goals mean it's really hard to make something that has no justifiable reason to fit.

I think "coherence" is being substituted for "complex" or "nuanced" in this argument where some prefer for a setting to have a strict set of goals with precise details about why something is or isn't included and FR doesn't typically go for all those extra steps so it's "incoherent".

To borrow from the previous example, it's not that it can't make sense that a Warforged race showed up in FR*, it's that they want a complicated reason and nuanced wordlbuilding implications for it like Eberron has. One of these isn't any worse than the other until it becomes an elitism contest where those who prefer the former are playing "silly" dnd and the latter is playing "serious" or "coherent" dnd.
A small handful came from Eberron in a magical anomaly and Gond and his faithful are working to replicate the creation process. Heck, it didn't have to be wildly complicated, Dragon Heist already has a sentient Nimblewright, it's not a stretch to assume they could be made sapient.

[Xervous]

Unclear why the focus is solely on FR when there's more than one 5e setting - sure, FR's the go-to for adventures, but since Eberron already came up re: artificer/warforged one could quite easily point at that, especially since it's (arguably) the second most prevalent setting this edition. Is it incoherent? I wouldn't say so, and I'd wager to say that it's probably more coherent than most homebrew settings, yes, including yours, whomever is reading this (including me, since I wrote it).


Eberron is a well structured setting that shines as an example of what you get when a single author writes towards a theme. The main slight I’ve seen directed at Eberron’s coherency and function is that they goofed on population numbers. Most other details exist to present simmering potential for conflicts or regions of uncertainty that invite GMs to decide what’s going on behind the curtains. Eberron is conscious of the particulars that warforged can demand of a setting and it addresses them. Though the one question that’s nagging me is whether or not people take Keith’s statement of “about 10k warforged exist” as gospel or a number distorted by the weird population numbers published in Eberron sourcebooks.

[KorvinStarmast]

Eberron is a well structured setting that shines as an example of what you get when a single author writes towards a theme. The main slight I’ve seen directed at Eberron’s coherency and function is that they goofed on population numbers. FWIW, as I review World Without Number I find that the map (how big is a hex) is too small for the population numbers presented, but, as it's a post apocalyptic setting there may be more justification for that somewhere in the notes that the author has elsewhere. At least FR has lots of empty space between population centers.

[Xervous]

FWIW, as I review World Without Number I find that the map (how big is a hex) is too small for the population numbers presented, but, as it's a post apocalyptic setting there may be more justification for that somewhere in the notes that the author has elsewhere. At least FR has lots of empty space between population centers.

Further reading is hinting at WotC multiplying distances by 10 or so “to make it feel more epic.” Though even then 10k warforged is a small number with how frequently I was seeing them offed in various adventures.

When it comes to PC accessible species in a cosmopolitan setting, what bracket do people expect to see for minimum population? 10k, 100k, 1M?

[KorvinStarmast]

Further reading is hinting at WotC multiplying distances by 10 or so “to make it feel more epic.” Though even then 10k warforged is a small number with how frequently I was seeing them offed in various adventures.

When it comes to PC accessible species in a cosmopolitan setting, what bracket do people expect to see for minimum population? 10k, 100k, 1M?
For me 10k is sufficient given that they were purpose built for war and are trying to find their way, or how they fit in, during the 'before the next war' period. They would, it seems to me, be logically disproportionately represented as PCs (given their origins) as compared to all other races.

[Mastikator]

So what would you give them at level 10 to make up for scrapping the feature that's specifically about letting them be good / efficient at crafting?

Nothing, and it wouldn't be the first time a ribbon feature of a class or race is not used ever in a game. Several skills and tool proficiencies suffer the same fate.

Most tools arguably.

The artificer is plenty strong at level 10 without ever touching the DMG's or Xanathar's optional rules for crafting.

[Telwar]

For me 10k is sufficient given that they were purpose built for war and are trying to find their way, or how they fit in, during the 'before the next war' period. They would, it seems to me, be logically disproportionately represented as PCs (given their origins) as compared to all other races.

I'd assume far more were produced, and they had high casualties, since they were often shock troops. ~10k surviving seems reasonable, but obviously that can be adjusted up or down as needed.

[Psyren]

Nothing, and it wouldn't be the first time a ribbon feature of a class or race is not used ever in a game. Several skills and tool proficiencies suffer the same fate.

Most tools arguably.

The artificer is plenty strong at level 10 without ever touching the DMG's or Xanathar's optional rules for crafting.

Indeed.


Eberron is conscious of the particulars that warforged can demand of a setting and it addresses them.

There is no reason that Warforged in another setting have to be "Warforged." You can keep the mechanics but alter their origin and name, much like Ravenloft did with Caliban (RL half-orcs) or how Dragonlance eventually altered its Draconians to be Dragonborn. All it takes is a modicum of creativity and flexibility.


Further reading is hinting at WotC multiplying distances by 10 or so “to make it feel more epic.” Though even then 10k warforged is a small number with how frequently I was seeing them offed in various adventures.

When it comes to PC accessible species in a cosmopolitan setting, what bracket do people expect to see for minimum population? 10k, 100k, 1M?

Just a reminder that you're talking about settings where myriad near-omnipotent entities take a vested interest in the continued existence of certain species, including tiny enclaves of them; where several of those species don't have anything approaching traditional human procreation or gestation; and where simply leaving your village to go to the next one over carries a high percentage of death by owlbear or displacer beast or gibbering mouther etc. In other words, typical population numbers (including minimum viable ones) kinda go out the window.

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

There is no reason that Warforged in another setting have to be "Warforged." You can keep the mechanics but alter their origin and name, much like Ravenloft did with Caliban (RL half-orcs) or how Dragonlance eventually altered its Draconians to be Dragonborn. All it takes is a modicum of creativity and flexibility.

Absolutely. The mechanics of Warforged are very flexible, so their conceit in the setting need not be the same.

Indeed, two different Warforged or even colonies of warforged, in the same setting can have entirely different conceits without burdening it.



Just a reminder that you're talking about settings where myriad near-omnipotent entities take a vested interest in the continued existence of certain species, including tiny enclaves of them; where several of those species don't have anything approaching traditional human procreation or gestation; and where simply leaving your village to go to the next one over carries a high percentage of death by owlbear or displacer beast or gibbering mouther etc. In other words, typical population numbers (including minimum viable ones) kinda go out the window.

Quite. The idea that there is a “serious” set of demographics and a “silly” set in these settings is nonsensical: the demographics don’t demand a real world explanation when disease and hunger have magical remedies, life spans and life cycles are alien and there are mystical beings beyond mortal comprehension with agency in them.

To reject creationism in a magical setting as silly is to reject the game itself.

One might have a homebrew setting that rejects creationism, but that’s a pretty steep deviation from the norm.