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

[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

[CIDE]

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

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.