# Tiefling and half-orc should not be in the PHB



## variant

I didn't like it when the half-orc appeared in 3e, and I liked it even less when i saw Tiefling in 4e. These types of half races should just be stuffed in some addon book somewhere. Give me the basic races in the PHB: Human, elf, halfling, and dwarf.

The reason is that I usually don't play with half-monster races, and I am tired of hearing "but it's in the Player's Handbook..." anytime I form a group to play in my local book store.


----------



## delericho

For the starter set, I certainly agree with restricting the set to Human, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling.

For the Core Rulebook, they could probably get away with sticking with that set, but if they're going to go beyond it, they should do so strictly based on the popularity of the races (which they know pretty exactly, thanks to the DDI). My guess would be that the half-elf comes pretty high on that list.

(Although it should be noted that, apparently, it's only a very tiny minority who play anything outside the 'big 4'.)


----------



## Minigiant

I like the half orc and tiefling. There should be a race with a bonus to each of the ability score.

Half-orc easilty fits the "Strong" race. I believe any setting with a bunch of races should have a "Strong".  And Half-orcs also fills the "Big idiot" role.

Tieflings are the smart race. 

With Humans being the no adjustment, I want a race with a bonus for each ability score. And if they do penalties, there should be a race for each racial ability penalty. And with Halflings and Elves both being Dex classes, then we need 8 core races.


----------



## Danzauker

variant said:


> I didn't like it when the half-orc appeared in 3e, and I liked it even less when i saw Tiefling in 4e. These types of half races should just be stuffed in some addon book somewhere. Give me the basic races in the PHB: Human, elf, halfling, and dwarf.
> 
> The reason is that I usually don't play with half-monster races, and I am tired of hearing "but it's in the Player's Handbook..." anytime I form a group to play in my local book store.




So, because YOU don't have the strength of will to enforce the decisions you make in your campaigns, EVERYBODY else must miss something?


----------



## Libramarian

Minigiant said:


> I like the half orc and tiefling. There should be a race with a bonus to each of the ability score.




Nah. Too much symmetry is ugly.


----------



## Buugipopuu

Tieflings (and Aasimar) should be special, making them +1 LA races was fine (although they probably weren't good enough to warrant the +1 LA, but that's just because WotC overestimated almost every single LA they printed), I never liked things like 'lesser Drow' or 'lesser Aasimar' for people who wanted to play exotic races but didn't want to pay for them.  Half-Orc is fine as a standard race, they seem like they should be rarely common, what with Orcs and Humans being some of the most populous of races.  Tieflings should be too rare to be presented as a standard option in most campaigns.  Also Dragonborn can go suck a lemon.

What I'd like to see would be a generic half-breed system, that lets DMs generate the racial stats of half-whatevers or quarter-whatevers from the monster in question's stats (maybe with a little fudging).  Things like Half-Orc and Tiefling could be presented as examples in this system.  This'll never actually be done though.


----------



## Bedrockgames

delericho said:


> For the Core Rulebook, they could probably get away with sticking with that set, but if they're going to go beyond it, they should do so strictly based on the popularity of the races (which they know pretty exactly, thanks to the DDI). My guess would be that the half-elf comes pretty high on that list.
> 
> ()




There are two pitfalls with this approach. First, DDI is mostly 4E fans, so the impression may be skewed. It is possible pathfinder, 3e and old school folks have different preferences on races. If they want to unify the base, they need to make sure the race selection works for all these groups.

The second is this: just because a race or option is rarely used, that doesn't mean people dont want it to be there in the core book. There are races I play only rarely but very much like and want in the core game.


----------



## delericho

Minigiant said:


> I like the half orc and tiefling. There should be a race with a bonus to each of the ability score.




I have no objection to half-orcs and tieflings, but ability score adjustments should go away. All they do is encourage min-maxing, leading to really bland parties where races are chosen not because the player _actually_ wants to play an elf, but because they want to get that Dex bonus.

And ability penalties are just as bad, making the cost of playing against type too great to ever really be considered.

All of the ability score generation methods that are being seriously talked about allow the player to assign stats to scores as he or she sees fit. That being the case, modelling the 'strong' race is trivial - assign your best score to Strength. (And, incidentally, the exact same logic applies to gender adjustments and aging adjustments - if you want them, assign the stats accordingly. There's just no need for specific modifiers.)


----------



## Ichneumon

If the barbarian and warlock will be gracing the PHB, it'd be a crime not to have the half-orc and tiefling on board.

They'd be optional, of course, and any DM is entitled to omit them as a PC choice. But optional doesn't have to mean "outtasite".


----------



## Khaalis

Danzauker said:


> So, because YOU don't have the strength of will to enforce the decisions you make in your campaigns, EVERYBODY else must miss something?




I have to agree here. More options for races is better than fewer. By the restriction argument, Humans should be the only "core" race and everything else is an "additive" as humans are the only race in 99% of every fantasy setting. There is no 1 Elf to rule them all. Some setting have no halflings. Etc.

Personally I would like to see a wide range of "base" races as well as a codified race building system, somewhat like Fantasy Craft. Something along the lines of "all races are built with X build points and here is a list of possible racial abilities and their costs". I would also like to see Sub-races done as racial feats.


----------



## variant

Danzauker said:


> So, because YOU don't have the strength of will to enforce the decisions you make in your campaigns, EVERYBODY else must miss something?




You are confusing crap that gets on my nerves with not having the strength to enforce my decisions.



Khaalis said:


> I have to agree here. More options for races is  better than fewer. By the restriction argument, Humans should be the  only "core" race and everything else is an "additive" as humans are the  only race in 99% of every fantasy setting. There is no 1 Elf to rule  them all. Some setting have no halflings. Etc.
> 
> Personally I would like to see a wide range of "base" races as well as a  codified race building system, somewhat like Fantasy Craft. Something  along the lines of "all races are built with X build points and here is a  list of possible racial abilities and their costs". I would also like  to see Sub-races done as racial feats.




I disagree. There can always be _too much_ of something. To cover people who want more races, they could release a "Tome of Races".


----------



## Meophist

Personally, I would like to see a variety of exotic races. It'll sell to me better as a fantasy world where fantastic things happen. I would kinda like to see the different races do things that you wouldn't expect a human to.

Although I seem to be a bit of a minority in that.


----------



## Khaalis

Ichneumon said:


> They'd be optional, of course, and any DM is entitled to omit them as a PC choice. But optional doesn't have to mean "outtasite".




As with all previous editions of D&D ... RULE 0!   EVERYTHING should be "optional" as per the DM's choice for the game they are running.  That doesn't mean because some people hate Halflings/Pechs that they should be omitted.


----------



## Minigiant

Libramarian said:


> Nah. Too much symmetry is ugly.





But too little symmetry is boring.

Why do we have to be stuck with humans, short humans, scrawny humans, and stout humans?

Can't a brother get a few big dumb lummoxes, horned crafty red people, and a sneaky green people?


----------



## variant

Khaalis said:


> As with all previous editions of D&D ... RULE 0!   EVERYTHING should be "optional" as per the DM's choice for the game they are running.  That doesn't mean because some people hate Halflings/Pechs that they should be omitted.




Except from my experience, most people don't deem anything in the Player's Handbook to fall under "Rule 0".


----------



## Shemeska

I like tieflings (and aasimar) and they've been a part of D&D for a long time now as player races. However as much as I like them, I can see the point of those folks who aren't sure about them being a part of the initial PHB core of the game. And oddly enough, I'm ok with that.

Some of the crazier oddball races that I'm perfectly comfortable with from the PoV of someone used to playing planar games where standard races might be a minority, they do tend to stick out in more mundane settings. Perhaps they should be restricted in some capacity to being included in a supplemental race book (something like the forthcoming Pathfinder 'Advanced Races Guide'). They're part of the game, the information is out there, but there's the soft restriction of their not being in the PHB so rules lawyers won't moan about the DM being unfair or against the rules if they don't allow them in their particular campaign. That's the hope anyway.

And if there's a published planar setting, or another setting where tieflings or aasimar, or whatever other oddball races won't be too far afield from the traditional core D&D races - well that's a perfect spot to point them out as options appropriate for those settings.


----------



## mkill

variant said:


> You are confusing crap that gets on my nerves with not having the strength to enforce my decisions.




Nope. He isn't, he is spot on.

And really, maybe gaming can teach you some tolerance. RPGs are a social hobby. Deal with it.

If everybody would learn to accept other people's chosen race in a game, they might even learn to accept other people's born race in real life. And that would make this planet so much nicer to live on.

/thread


----------



## Recidivism

Honestly I can't say I've ever used a Tiefling NPC in a campaign. Even so I'm not really opposed to them showing up just because the idea of having character with some demonic/supernatural heritage is not that uncommon. I think it's a good idea to have rules for them if only for that purpose.

I wouldn't mind seeing Dragonborn out of the PHB though. They never really had a strong flavor in my mind to differentiate themselves from Orcs/Half-Orcs, and the latter are a lot more iconic.


----------



## tlantl

If they are going to be there they need to look like humans. 

Orcs are traditionally an enemy of man and as such anything that resembles one is not going to survive very long.

Tieflings are demon (devil) spawn. I don't have demons or devils just walking around making babies, so that race is going to be so rare as to be non existent. If they look anything like the ones from4e they to will be kos in my games.  

It's all well and good that people like variety, but is there any reason to put monsters in the player's hand book? I'd prefer some other good and gentle race be used to expand the choices, Half orcs are traditional but I still have issue with them.


----------



## delericho

Bedrockgames said:


> There are two pitfalls with this approach. First, DDI is mostly 4E fans, so the impression may be skewed. It is possible pathfinder, 3e and old school folks have different preferences on races. If they want to unify the base, they need to make sure the race selection works for all these groups.




Impossible. If they include the Tiefling but not the Gnome, they will anger one side; if they include the Gnome but not the Tiefling, they will anger the other. The only way to satisfy both camps would seem be to include all the previously-core races: Human, Dragonborn, Dwarf, Elf, Gnome, Half-elf, Half-orc, Halfling and Tiefling.

But even the all-inclusive model won't work. The Dragonborn, in particular, have some very vocal fans, but there is also a very vocal group who very definitely _don't_ want them included in the core.

If the 'big 4' are indeed so overwhelmingly popular (which I'm honestly not certain I believe, but don't have any _actual_ reason to doubt), then perhaps the way forward is to include only those in the core, and make _everything_ else an option.



> The second is this: just because a race or option is rarely used, that doesn't mean people dont want it to be there in the core book. There are races I play only rarely but very much like and want in the core game.




Fair enough, but if each race takes up a 2-page spread (as in 4e), then for each race you include you're going to have to cut something substantial to make room. Is your desire for races that you rarely use (or, worse, ones you're going to houserule out of your game) really so great that you're willing to lose, say, magic items from the core entirely?


----------



## variant

If they would limit to just the base four base races, they could expand upon those races a lot more such as with racial classes or a point based system to customize them as there would be more room in the book for them.

Then when they release new books, they could do the same with all other races they want to add.


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun

variant said:


> You are confusing crap that gets on my nerves with not having the strength to enforce my decisions.



 So, it isn't so much that you lack the will to place limitations on your own campaigns, it is you are annoyed with certain options in the game, so you feel no one should be able to use those options?  And so, instead of you having to lay down ground rules when you form a gaming group, those of us that like the half-orc or the tiefling(core races, mind you) must buy another book in order to play them?

Because saying "I don't allow Half-orcs or Tieflings in my campaigns" is just too hard.  Here is the thing, if the player takes issue with that, they can find another group.  And if they insist on staying, they will probably say "Half-Orcs aren't allowed, oh, okay, I will play a human instead".


----------



## variant

CasvalRemDeikun said:


> So, it isn't so much that you lack the will to place limitations on your own campaigns, it is you are annoyed with certain options in the game, so you feel no one should be able to use those options?  And so, instead of you having to lay down ground rules when you form a gaming group, those of us that like the half-orc or the tiefling(core races, mind you) must buy another book in order to play them?
> 
> Because saying "I don't allow Half-orcs or Tieflings in my campaigns" is just too hard.  Here is the thing, if the player takes issue with that, they can find another group.  And if they insist on staying, they will probably say "Half-Orcs aren't allowed, oh, okay, I will play a human instead".




So since you are so gun-ho about including races then you wouldn't mind filling the entire PHB with races. Just leave out the classes, equipment, and rules.


----------



## Khaalis

variant said:


> Except from my experience, most people don't deem anything in the Player's Handbook to fall under "Rule 0".




Then this is definitely a personal thing. As a player and DM, Rule 0 has always ruled in every game I've played in over the last 30 years or so.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

Rather than the symmetry of races to ability score bonuses/penalties, I'd just like to see a little ecological sense. Elves live in the forests, humans favour urban environments, halflings more rural settlements, dwarves in the hills and mountains. Where the heck do Tieflings hang out (other than with humans)? If you want to fill out the race line-up, perhaps we need a desert race, or an arctic race, or a coastal race? Could existing races be themed to fit these locations?


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun

variant said:


> So since you are so gun-ho about including races then you wouldn't mind filling the entire PHB with races. Just leave out the classes, equipment, and rules.



 Huh, I didn't realize I was advocating filling the PHB with races.  I am advocating putting races that have been core races in the past in there, much like WotC claims they are going to be doing with classes.  You are going to be hard pressed to find too many people that will advocate limitations as being better than options.  Limitations can be set after the fact, options don't materialize out of thin air.

Don't dictate how I run my games because you are unable to dictate how you run yours.


----------



## Bedrockgames

delericho said:


> Impossible. If they include the Tiefling but not the Gnome, they will anger one side; if they include the Gnome but not the Tiefling, they will anger the other. The only way to satisfy both camps would seem be to include all the previously-core races: Human, Dragonborn, Dwarf, Elf, Gnome, Half-elf, Half-orc, Halfling and Tiefling.
> 
> But even the all-inclusive model won't work. The Dragonborn, in particular, have some very vocal fans, but there is also a very vocal group who very definitely _don't_ want them included in the core.
> 
> If the 'big 4' are indeed so overwhelmingly popular (which I'm honestly not certain I believe, but don't have any _actual_ reason to doubt), then perhaps the way forward is to include only those in the core, and make _everything_ else an option.
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough, but if each race takes up a 2-page spread (as in 4e), then for each race you include you're going to have to cut something substantial to make room. Is your desire for races that you rarely use (or, worse, ones you're going to houserule out of your game) really so great that you're willing to lose, say, magic items from the core entirely?




Just move the magic items back to the DMG to make room for races and options. Also 4E had pretty big font. They can always go back to a tighter layout with less white space and lower font size to fit in more material. 

Having only four core races is probably not going to be popular. They will simply have to find the most acceptable solution to all sides. My guess is that means to have the races I want, there may be some races in there I am not so fond of. But the solution isn't to cater entirely to DDI fans or 3e fans. They need to attract both groups to achieve their goal.


----------



## Oni

If you're running the game just lay down your ground rules, if you don't like whining, don't play with whiny people.  If you're not running the game, why should you be able to play the race you want by the guy across the table not be able to?  Because you don't like it? 

Either way your desire sounds incredible selfish, since it is something that tons of people do enjoy and can be ignored without affecting the game one tiny iota.


----------



## Khaalis

variant said:


> So since you are so gun-ho about including races then you wouldn't mind filling the entire PHB with races. Just leave out the classes, equipment, and rules.



Have you looked at other games?  Take Fantasy Craft. "Core" races are *Drakes*, Dwarves, Elves, *Giants*, *Goblins*, Humans, *Ogres*, *Orcs*, Pechs, *Rootwalers* (aka Treants), *Saurian* (aka Lizard-folk), and *Unborn* (aka Warroged or Golems).

That's a pretty hefty list of race and NOT the standard D&D fare. To boot? They include about 390 pages of "classes, equipment, and rules".


----------



## variant

Khaalis said:


> Have you looked at other games?  Take Fantasy Craft. "Core" races are *Drakes*, Dwarves, Elves, *Giants*, *Goblins*, Humans, *Ogres*, *Orcs*, Pechs, *Rootwalers* (aka Treants), *Saurian* (aka Lizard-folk), and *Unborn* (aka Warroged or Golems).
> 
> That's a pretty hefty list of race and NOT the standard D&D fare. To boot? They include about 390 pages of "classes, equipment, and rules".




I really don't care what other games have. There are a number of reasons I don't play them.


----------



## Li Shenron

I don't like half-races. But half-elves and half-orcs are traditional in D&D so I think it's fair that they are included in the PHB. In the past I've tried to ban both of them (and gnomes) from my campaign, but when gaming with new players it doesn't feel nice to start off with restricting PHB material already, so today I would rather allow them _but_ with a warning that if you want to be a half-elf or half-orc you're probably going to be the only one you'll ever see, at least for a long time.

Tieflings, aasimar and drow are less traditional as _PC_ races, but still I would not mind to see them in the PHB. However I prefer these races to be above average, so I hope that they are made more powerful and given a LA or something similar, rather than nerfing them down only to allow 1st-level characters (although if they can pull this off with a special rule, such as e.g. having 0 levels in classes or other penalties, then I'm fine).

Dragonborn and warforged, hell no! Not in my PHB... they are way too weirdos and have too short tradition to pretend a space in core, but you can put them in the DMG if you want.


----------



## Khaalis

variant said:


> I really don't care what other games have. There are a number of reasons I don't play them.




Well to be honest it doesn't sounds like you play D&D either. There is a lot more to D&D races than "Human, elf, halfling, and dwarf".   Just because you personally don't like/want others in the PHB, puts you very likely in a small minority.  If absolutely nothing else the Half-Elf, the Gnome and Half-Orc have all been around as core races since 1E.


----------



## variant

Khaalis said:


> Well to be honest it doesn't sounds like you play D&D either. There is a lot more to D&D races than "Human, elf, halfling, and dwarf".   Just because you personally don't like/want others in the PHB, puts you very likely in a small minority.  If absolutely nothing else the Half-Elf, the Gnome and Half-Orc have all been around as core races since 1E.




I still remember the outrage from people on forums when Tiefling was announced in the 4e PHB.

Half-Orc was removed in 2e.


----------



## Oni

variant said:


> I still remember the outrage from people on forums when Tiefling was announced in the 4e PHB.
> 
> Half-Orc was removed in 2e.




If I recall correctly the outrage over Tieflings had a lot more to do with the art than anything else.


----------



## Minigiant

Li Shenron said:


> I don't like half-races. But half-elves and half-orcs are traditional in D&D so I think it's fair that they are included in the PHB. In the past I've tried to ban both of them (and gnomes) from my campaign, but when gaming with new players it doesn't feel nice to start off with restricting PHB material already, so today I would rather allow them _but_ with a warning that if you want to be a half-elf or half-orc you're probably going to be the only one you'll ever see, at least for a long time.
> 
> Tieflings, aasimar and drow are less traditional as _PC_ races, but still I would not mind to see them in the PHB. However I prefer these races to be above average, so I hope that they are made more powerful and given a LA or something similar, rather than nerfing them down only to allow 1st-level characters (although if they can pull this off with a special rule, such as e.g. having 0 levels in classes or other penalties, then I'm fine).
> 
> Dragonborn and warforged, hell no! Not in my PHB... they are way too weirdos and have too short tradition to pretend a space in core, but you can put them in the DMG if you want.




I can still play my minotaur wizard or my goblin paladin, right?


----------



## Ichneumon

So, you're a DM, you're starting a campaign, and there's a race in the PHB that you don't like at all. What do you do?

First, why not consider giving it a chance? Let a player run one, and see if it really is as bad 'live' at it seems in print. Magnanimity goes a long way in helping to build a stable group and a happy gaming environment.

But if you insist on excluding it from your game, try to find a more creative reason than "I don't like it". There are few greyer palls over a campaign than obvious DM prejudice. Perhaps tieflings were all slaughtered in battle centuries ago - this could lead to PCs adventuring in tiefling city ruins. Maybe it's well known that tieflings are a myth; the concoction of folks who've had too much mead and thought they saw someone with devil horns. Perhaps orc and humans could once breed, but the resulting half-orcs were so powerful that Gruumsh foresaw that soon one of them would become mighty enough to depose him unless he acted. So he cursed orcs, making their blood unable to mingle with that of humans.

Reasons like that help to enrich your campaign, so that it makes sense that these races aren't here in this particular world. Furthermore, they offer the chance to reintroduce them if you ever change your mind, possibly via an epic quest.


----------



## tlantl

variant said:


> Half-Orc was removed in 2e.




It was? I must have skipped all of the even numbered editions because although I own many 2e books I only used the good stuff from them.

If it got changed from the way it was in 1e then we ignored it. It's kind of hard to play a half orc fighter/assassin if the race and class don't exist any more.

I liked enough about 3e that we adopted it around the time 3.5 was released. Too bad they ruined as much as they fixed.


----------



## Libramarian

mkill said:


> Nope. He isn't, he is spot on.
> 
> And really, maybe gaming can teach you some tolerance. RPGs are a social hobby. Deal with it.
> 
> If everybody would learn to accept other people's chosen race in a game, they might even learn to accept other people's born race in real life. And that would make this planet so much nicer to live on.
> 
> /thread




No, those things are unrelated.

(Thread appears to still be open).


----------



## thewok

variant said:


> So since you are so gun-ho about including races then you wouldn't mind filling the entire PHB with races. Just leave out the classes, equipment, and rules.



Wow.  This is a horrible argument, and a fallacious one, to boot, but I'm not going to go look up exactly what it is because it doesn't matter.  All that matters is that your retort here is pretty hyperbolic and, quite frankly, dumb.

If we assume that each race gets two pages like in 4E (a lot of space for a race, but I happen to like that format), and that they include each race that was core in both 3E and 4E, then the race chapter of the book will come out to 22 pages.  Eleven races (dragonborn, drow, dwarf, eladrin, elf, gnome, half elf, half orc, halfling, human, tiefling) at two pages each comes to 22 pages.  Out of a 220-page book.

I can handle 10% of a player's handbook being devoted to races.

Actually, I could handle 20% of the book devoted to races.  Races are the very first and most visible way of creating flavor in a game.  The more options, the better.


----------



## variant

thewok said:


> Wow.  This is a horrible argument, and a fallacious one, to boot, but I'm not going to go look up exactly what it is because it doesn't matter.  All that matters is that your retort here is pretty hyperbolic and, quite frankly, dumb.
> 
> If we assume that each race gets two pages like in 4E (a lot of space for a race, but I happen to like that format), and that they include each race that was core in both 3E and 4E, then the race chapter of the book will come out to 22 pages.  Eleven races (dragonborn, drow, dwarf, eladrin, elf, gnome, half elf, half orc, halfling, human, tiefling) at two pages each comes to 22 pages.  Out of a 220-page book.
> 
> I can handle 10% of a player's handbook being devoted to races.
> 
> Actually, I could handle 20% of the book devoted to races.  Races are the very first and most visible way of creating flavor in a game.  The more options, the better.




Any space dedicated to other races is less space dedicated to the four most popular races.


----------



## Libramarian

Minigiant said:


> But too little symmetry is boring.
> 
> Why do we have to be stuck with humans, short humans, scrawny humans, and stout humans?
> 
> Can't a brother get a few big dumb lummoxes, horned crafty red people, and a sneaky green people?




Actually I agree with your assessment of demihumans as pretty much just short/scrawny/stout humans.

But my response is....then let's just have humans. 

I don't much like other races actually. I'd be cool with ditching the race concept entirely. Unless they were really mechanically important, like race-as-class.

But I'm also kind of a pushover as a DM, so if somebody started a request with "can a brother..." I'd be like oh alright go for it.


----------



## variant

Libramarian said:


> Actually I agree with your assessment of demihumans as pretty much just short/scrawny/stout humans.
> 
> But my response is....then let's just have humans.
> 
> I don't much like other races actually. I'd be cool with ditching the race concept entirely. Unless they were really mechanically important, like race-as-class.
> 
> But I'm also kind of a pushover as a DM, so if somebody started a request with "can a brother..." I'd be like oh alright go for it.




If the choice was between just human, and having tiefling and half-orc in the PHB, I would choose just human.


----------



## tlantl

variant said:


> Any space dedicated to other races is less space dedicated to the four most popular races.





See now there's a problem. Since I don't find the _popular_ races to be any more important than the others or even plan to use them unless there's a mechanical advantage to playing as one, I need as much information on the races I favor as your with it and hip crowd does. 

D&D races ain't a popularity contest. It's an equal opportunity employer. My unpopular choice is just as valid as yours is.


----------



## variant

tlantl said:


> See now there's a problem. Since I don't find the _popular_ races to be any more important than the others or even plan to use them unless there's a mechanical advantage to playing as one, I need as much information on the races I favor as your with it and hip crowd does.
> 
> D&D races ain't a popularity contest. It's an equal opportunity employer. My unpopular choice is just as valid as yours is.




Your argument could be used for _any _race or potential race_. _Less popular stuff is what is called niche and should be put in expansion books or left in a tiny section of the DMG or MM.


----------



## Libramarian

tlantl said:


> My unpopular choice is just as valid as yours is.




No it isn't...

I mean that sounds nice but it doesn't make any sense in this context.

If it's true that only a tiny minority of people play anything other than the 4 core races that's a pretty rock solid argument in favor of removing them.


----------



## variant

Libramarian said:


> No it isn't...
> 
> I mean that sounds nice but it doesn't make any sense in this context.
> 
> If it's true that only a tiny minority of people play anything other than the 4 core races that's a pretty rock solid argument in favor of removing them.




In fact, I think the gray elf, wood elf, and drow sub-races are probably played more than the tiefling and half-orc. Plus of all the lesser played 'core races' of the past, gnome would take precedence.


----------



## Minigiant

variant said:


> Any space dedicated to other races is less space dedicated to the four most popular races.





I haven't played a human in 15 years. My last dwarf was convinced he was a dragon. I only play halfilng with classes that don't match their fluff. And only play elves when forced.

I'm still mad at Bioware for making Shepard and Hawke human. If I want to play a human, I go to work. I wanna be a Krogan Sniper, sibling.


----------



## variant

Minigiant said:


> I haven't played a human in 15 years. My last dwarf was convinced he was a dragon. I only play halfilng with classes that don't match their fluff. And only play elves when forced.
> 
> I'm still mad at Bioware for making Shepard and Hawke human. If I want to play a human, I go to work. I wanna be a Krogan Sniper, sibling.




The 'Tome of Races' book would certainly be for you.


----------



## Oni

variant said:


> In fact, I think the gray elf, wood elf, and drow sub-races are probably played more than the tiefling and half-orc. Plus of all the lesser played 'core races' of the past, gnome would take precedence.




I tell you what, if you put Drow in the core book, then you may as well take out all the other races.  If fact you can probably get rid most of the classes other than rangers, too.  That way we can use the rest of the PHB for describing the two weapon fighting rules.  Nothing but Drizzts as far as the eye can see.


----------



## Minigiant

variant said:


> The 'Tome of Races' book would certainly be for you.




Why should I have to wait for a special book to play my preferred characters just because I don't like stereotypical characters.

I wanna play weirdos.

*knocks over bowl of vegetables*


----------



## Tallifer

variant said:


> I didn't like it when the half-orc appeared in 3e, and I liked it even less when i saw Tiefling in 4e. These types of half races should just be stuffed in some add-on book somewhere. Give me the basic races in the PHB: Human, elf, halfling, and dwarf.
> 
> The reason is that I usually don't play with half-monster races, and I am tired of hearing "but it's in the Player's Handbook..." anytime I form a group to play in my local book store.




The Red Starter Box should be very simple with four races and four classes, no feats, no powers, no skills, no themes, no exotic weapons. This will be great for new players and pleasing to the Old School.

But the (almost simultaneously published) Advanced Players' Handbook should offer a full array of choices. This will be good for experienced players who like options, some familiar stuff and a great mixture of everything.


----------



## Li Shenron

Minigiant said:


> I can still play my minotaur wizard or my goblin paladin, right?




Sure. 

You're going to have a very hard time with the minotaur because of its ECL. 
You're going to have problems with both in civilized communities because of your monstrous nature.
I _might_ be against the goblin paladin depending on the how the specific campaign treats goblins (I usually make them more like "gremlins" i.e. evil prankster fey-types, in which case a paladin is nearly impossible to make it work).

It's not combinations of race+class that disturb me, but instead the nature of some races. In fact I'm not banning them as PC races, I simply don't want to see them in my setting world outright


----------



## Khaalis

Li Shenron said:


> It's not combinations of race+class that disturb me, but instead the nature of some races. In fact I'm not banning them as PC races, I simply don't want to see them in my setting world outright



The problem here is that "setting" is ALL subjective. 

I think the real problem here is that some people only see their fantasy as HAVING to be classic Tolkienesque settings - thus Elf, Human, Halfling and Dwarf with everything else being a "monster".  I don't think that D&D needs to remain clinging to the shirt tail of Tolkien anymore. Fantasy has grown since then.

Some people, myself included, prefer to stretch our fantasy outside that (in our opinion) over-done stereotype. What if instead of being solitary recluses, dragons acted more like "human" psychology? They'd rule the world. What if you looked at humans as a product of hominid evolution and are homo-sapiens evolved from orangutans and chimps, and then said orcs were of the same evolutionary tree but are say homo-neandethalensis evolved from golrillas, and halflings are homo-floresiensis evolved from monkeys? Also, what about worlds like Dragonlance were ogres and minotaurs ARE a part of society and not "monsters"?

So yes, setting is all subjective, but I think it is a bad choice to pigeonhole D&D into the Tolkien setting mold on only 4 "core races" and everything else is the "exception".

JMHO. YMMV.


----------



## Grydan

I'm sorry variant, but I think it's a fairly safe bet that tieflings and half-orcs will be in the first player's book.

Along with every other race that's ever been in a PHB1 or equivalent.

And probably the drow, too, just because.


----------



## Minigiant

Li Shenron said:


> Sure.
> 
> You're going to have a very hard time with the minotaur because of its ECL.
> You're going to have problems with both in civilized communities because of your monstrous nature.
> I _might_ be against the goblin paladin depending on the how the specific campaign treats goblins (I usually make them more like "gremlins" i.e. evil prankster fey-types, in which case a paladin is nearly impossible to make it work).
> 
> It's not combinations of race+class that disturb me, but instead the nature of some races. In fact I'm not banning them as PC races, I simply don't want to see them in my setting world outright




I can deal with everything but the ECL.
ECL needs to DIE IN A FIRE! 



Khaalis said:


> The problem here is that "setting" is ALL subjective.
> 
> I think the real problem here is that some people only see their fantasy as HAVING to be classic Tolkienesque settings - thus Elf, Human, Halfling and Dwarf with everything else being a "monster".  I don't think that D&D needs to remain clinging to the shirt tail of Tolkien anymore. Fantasy has grown since then.
> 
> Some people, myself included, prefer to stretch our fantasy outside that (in our opinion) over-done stereotype. What if instead of being solitary recluses, dragons acted more like "human" psychology? They'd rule the world. What if you looked at humans as a product of hominid evolution and are homo-sapiens evolved from orangutans and chimps, and then said orcs were of the same evolutionary tree but are say homo-neandethalensis evolved from golrillas, and halflings are homo-floresiensis evolved from monkeys? Also, what about worlds like Dragonlance were ogres and minotaurs ARE a part of society and not "monsters"?
> 
> So yes, setting is all subjective, but I think it is a bad choice to pigeonhole D&D into the Tolkien setting mold on only 4 "core races" and everything else is the "exception".
> 
> JMHO. YMMV.




Exactly.

It's boooooooring seeing  the same 10 characters with different personalities over and over.

D&D needs to let Tolkien go. It's okay to be your own thing. Dwarf fighter, dwarf clerics, elf finesse or archery warriors, elven wizards and halfing sneaky guys should not be 99% of the nonhuman characters.


----------



## Remathilis

Half-orcs have been in 1/2 the PHBs so far. They're as PHB as gnomes or half-elves.


----------



## vagabundo

Thiefling and Dragonborn have been popular. I wouldn't be against half orcs, but I think there needs to be some advice about integrating them with the default setting.

With races only taking up a small amount of space I do not see a good reason for leaving them out. 

It is really up to the DM and the setting to restrict ones that don't fit.


----------



## Khaalis

Personally I'd like to see the half-Elf and Half-Orc go the way of the dodo.  I'd much rather see only "full stock" races (i.e. Elves, Humans, Orcs) with the possibility of taking racial feats like Human-blood, Elf-blood, Orc-blood, Dwarf-blood, etc. to gain the mixed breeds. It would also allow differentiation such as the half-elf that is more elf then human (Elf with Human-blood feat) or vice versa.


----------



## Li Shenron

Khaalis said:


> The problem here is that "setting" is ALL subjective.
> 
> I think the real problem here is that some people only see their fantasy as HAVING to be classic Tolkienesque settings - thus Elf, Human, Halfling and Dwarf with everything else being a "monster".  I don't think that D&D needs to remain clinging to the shirt tail of Tolkien anymore. Fantasy has grown since then.
> 
> Some people, myself included, prefer to stretch our fantasy outside that (in our opinion) over-done stereotype. What if instead of being solitary recluses, dragons acted more like "human" psychology? They'd rule the world. What if you looked at humans as a product of hominid evolution and are homo-sapiens evolved from orangutans and chimps, and then said orcs were of the same evolutionary tree but are say homo-neandethalensis evolved from golrillas, and halflings are homo-floresiensis evolved from monkeys? Also, what about worlds like Dragonlance were ogres and minotaurs ARE a part of society and not "monsters"?
> 
> So yes, setting is all subjective, but I think it is a bad choice to pigeonhole D&D into the Tolkien setting mold on only 4 "core races" and everything else is the "exception".
> 
> JMHO. YMMV.




You are forgetting that we're talking about core, the first PHB, i.e. the *starting point*.

Moving away from a classical view (both mechanics and flavor) is exactly what caused problems to 4e. You, me and everybody else who's been playing D&D long enough may want to move further to uncharted territories. But we all start from the same starting point to even define what would be original, we may want to go towards different directions, and there's a lot of others who don't feel the need to or are just starting to play D&D for the first time.

Trying something new in the core means to drag everybody else into the same direction, which is only one in thousands possible directions. Let campaign settings take care of that (we will never have too many of them), and supplements provide sparse bits for each DM to craft their own. But the core desperately needs to be stereotypically D&D, and recent history has simply proved that.


----------



## avin

variant said:


> In fact, I think the gray elf, wood elf, and drow sub-races are probably played more than the tiefling and half-orc. Plus of all the lesser played 'core races' of the past, gnome would take precedence.




Not everyone like Tolkienesque games.

There were far more Tieflings, Aasimars and Dragonborn characters in the games I play than Dwarves and Gnomes or Halflings. And I play since AD&D2E.

I've never seen Gray Elf and Wood Elf at table.

I'm in for a PHB1 with at least 10 races.

In fact, I think the most popular races would be Humans, Elves, *Drow* and Dwarves.


----------



## avin

I want to be able to start a Planescape game from day one.


----------



## steeldragons

Basic/Beginner Set/"Classic" Game: Humans, Elves, Dwarves and Halflings. This is no brainer. Noone's going to be insulted with these offerings.

"Advanced" PHB/Expert Set/"Legacy" Game options: Gnomes, Half-Elves, Half-Orcs (for their "traditional" rank, being in the game from day 2)
Dragonborn and Tieflings (for their popularity with/in the later editions) I personally, have no love for either of them and don't have them in my games/world setting. But people like them and, imho, would bay at the moons if they were not considered legitimate options for play out of the gate.

For me, its the Eladrin that need to be thrown (with their Eladrin bath water) into the abyss.

There have been "High elves" (which every elf character was originally assumed to be unless stated otherwise) and "Grey Elves" from the beginning. And, despite the misnomer of Eladrin being "High[er] Elves", they were not dimensional jumping extra-magicky-more-elfy-elves.

Eladrin need to go the way of the dodo.


----------



## Klaus

variant said:


> I didn't like it when the half-orc appeared in 3e, and I liked it even less when i saw Tiefling in 4e. These types of half races should just be stuffed in some addon book somewhere. Give me the basic races in the PHB: Human, elf, halfling, and dwarf.
> 
> The reason is that I usually don't play with half-monster races, and I am tired of hearing "but it's in the Player's Handbook..." anytime I form a group to play in my local book store.



You don't like them, and you are tired, but your very next sentence indicates that you are aware that there are people who like them and aren't tired.


----------



## Minigiant

Li Shenron said:


> You are forgetting that we're talking about core, the first PHB, i.e. the *starting point*.
> 
> Moving away from a classical view (both mechanics and flavor) is exactly what caused problems to 4e. You, me and everybody else who's been playing D&D long enough may want to move further to uncharted territories. But we all start from the same starting point to even define what would be original, we may want to go towards different directions, and there's a lot of others who don't feel the need to or are just starting to play D&D for the first time.
> 
> Trying something new in the core means to drag everybody else into the same direction, which is only one in thousands possible directions. Let campaign settings take care of that (we will never have too many of them), and supplements provide sparse bits for each DM to craft their own. But the core desperately needs to be stereotypically D&D, and recent history has simply proved that.





But core doesn't have to be boring.
5E is a unity edition, yes. It should still be D&D. D&D is a game with a load of intelligent races walking around. Many of them are humanoid or somewhat humanoid. Is it top much to have 2 or 3 of the races than surround the kingdom playable if they aren't brainwashed into evil? There are goblins, orcs, drow, gnomes, and the like right over there but you can't be one?


----------



## Khaalis

Li Shenron said:


> You are forgetting that we're talking about core, the first PHB, i.e. the *starting point*.
> 
> Moving away from a classical view (both mechanics and flavor) is exactly what caused problems to 4e. You, me and everybody else who's been playing D&D long enough may want to move further to uncharted territories. But we all start from the same starting point to even define what would be original, we may want to go towards different directions, and there's a lot of others who don't feel the need to or are just starting to play D&D for the first time.
> 
> Trying something new in the core means to drag everybody else into the same direction, which is only one in thousands possible directions. Let campaign settings take care of that (we will never have too many of them), and supplements provide sparse bits for each DM to craft their own. But the core desperately needs to be stereotypically D&D, and recent history has simply proved that.




The problem I have with this, is that it is basically unrealistic. If this were true, D&D Next is already done. They just published it - the re-release of AD&D 1E.

Intellectual property needs to grow and expand lest it become stale and unsellable. Thus the ever-growing number of different game systems to choose from. If people wanted the same old thing, they wouldn't want a new edition.

As a correlation, it would be like taking the same movie and remaking it over and over. There are only so many times people are willing to see the same exact thing, without new reinterpretation to make it "unique" before they simply stop consuming it. The same goes for fantasy material and especially the game system. If the game doesn't grow and evolve, it *will* die.

The problem with 4E is that it seems to me from reading here and the WotC boards, that "_most_" people feel that the changes to the game that hurt it weren't about details like new races, but in the fact that a classic RPG was turned into something more like Battletech (a tactical board game). The game simply became 90% about combat and *that* I think is what really hurt them. JMHO.


----------



## Danzauker

Khaalis said:


> Personally I'd like to see the half-Elf and Half-Orc go the way of the dodo.  I'd much rather see only "full stock" races (i.e. Elves, Humans, Orcs) with the possibility of taking racial feats like Human-blood, Elf-blood, Orc-blood, Dwarf-blood, etc. to gain the mixed breeds. It would also allow differentiation such as the half-elf that is more elf then human (Elf with Human-blood feat) or vice versa.




Yep, I'm much on the same boat.

Why having Half-Elves if you have Humans and Elves and you could just select features from one or the other? I hope in the modular approach they are devising they are taking care of this.

Oh, BTW, I'd really like to see "cultural" race features to be some sort of "backgroud pack" I can choose, and not hardwired in the races themselves.

It's ok for ability modifiers and aother innate things like darkvision to be hardwired, but why should ALL elves be skilled with bow and sword? If they made that a "background pack", I could easily strap it on, for example, to humans or orcs, if I wanted.


----------



## variant

avin said:


> Not everyone like Tolkienesque games.
> 
> There were far more Tieflings, Aasimars and Dragonborn characters in the  games I play than Dwarves and Gnomes or Halflings. And I play since  AD&D2E.
> 
> I've never seen Gray Elf and Wood Elf at table.
> 
> I'm in for a PHB1 with at least 10 races.
> 
> In fact, I think the most popular races would be Humans, Elves, *Drow* and Dwarves.




That is why they make expansion books. It is content for groups and players that insist on having niche content.

Again, if you are going to put niche races in the Player's Handbook, there is no reason to stop at the arbitrary number of 10. I have seen requests from people to play the most obscure monsters.



Klaus said:


> You don't like them, and you are tired, but your very next sentence indicates that you are aware that there are people who like them and aren't tired.




I am not arguing for them to be completely taken out of Dungeons & Dragons. Just that they shouldn't be in the Player's Handbook.


----------



## malkav666

I really don't care what races are in the PHB with two conditions:

1. They have to get the basics in there: Human, Dwarf, Elf

2.Theres not a ton of new races at the exclusion of tradition favorites. Im ok with them trying something new, in fact I expect it. I just don't want to give up races that have been in PHBs for years to make room for dragon people and bling elves again or any similar scenario. No offense to those who like such things they just weren't my cup of tea.

As far as tieflings go I think they are badass. Their inclusion in the core books was one of the few things I feel 4e did absolutely right. As far as half orcs or half anythings really I don't think they need to be in any book, I think they should be handled with a paragraph or two under an optional heading in the description of the pure race that they want to be half of. As for including orcs in general in the PHB? Id be down, I cant really imagine a fantasy world where orcs and goblins and such don't have a home. And I find it just as likely that an orc would leave its tribe and set out on a personal adventure as I do a dwarf leaving its home to do the same.

love,

malkav


----------



## Buugipopuu

Minigiant said:


> I can deal with everything but the ECL.
> ECL needs to DIE IN A FIRE!




Why?  If a player wants to play a Nymph or an Ethergaunt, why shouldn't the rules allow for that possibility?  Sure, there'll be social things to deal with, but if the player knows the consequences, they should be able to play whatever they want.  All fantasy races are not created equal, and ECL lets players who want to play powerful races do so without completely dominating the game with their extra powers.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Klaus said:


> You don't like them, and you are tired, but your very next sentence indicates that you are aware that there are people who like them and aren't tired.



And still I can understand him.
A d&d group usually looks like a freak show. IMHO the number of races available is too high and humans are to rarely found. Or at least usualy demihumans.
It is a lot easier to create a world, where only a few races are encountered regularly.
Some races should be playable, but rarer. One half-orc in the group is interesting... but when every character in the group is a "freak", then it gets strange very soon.

So IMHO humans should maybe be as flexible as in 4e. a generally good choice for every race with a strong incentive to take them.
Maybe all other races should be presented as optional and clearly state, that you may have difficulties when you come into an area mainly settled by humans.

Campaign settings should specify which races are how well represented in which areas and how normal people would react.

With all races besides humans presented as options, it is easy for a DM to say: no, this option is not available in my campaign.

And I guess, this way you have the best of both worlds.

[MENTION=2167]Khaalis[/MENTION]: 4e does not play like battle tech, sry... those rumors are wrong... "the everything is core" and "players may dictate, what the DM has to do" mentality is what really hurt the game.


----------



## Grazzt

variant said:


> The reason is that I usually don't play with half-monster races, and I am tired of hearing "but it's in the Player's Handbook..." anytime I form a group to play in my local book store.




If you are the DM, simply say "no". Done. I've done it for years. No gnomes or halflings in my campaign (and haven't been since 1e). Likely never will be either.


----------



## Ahnehnois

There are some races that are indisputably "classic D&D": the four (Human, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling). Realistically, gnomes and half-elves and maybe half-orcs belong in there as well.

As to anything else, we're all about options now, right? Stick the other races somewhere other than at the beginning of the PHB, but make them available. Tieflings have no business alongside humans, elves, and dwarves, but they do need to be in the core rulebooks somewhere. You need warforged for the Eberron crowd. You need goliaths because they're fun. Just put them in an "additional races" section or in the MM. As long as they're there, it's hard to argue anyone's being shorted.


----------



## Mallus

variant said:


> I didn't like it when the half-orc appeared in 3e, and I liked it even less when i saw Tiefling in 4e.



My first character ever was a half-orc. In 1e (AD&D). 

<Tevye>Tradition!</Tevye>

(if you don't like a race/class/spell/whatever, turn the page. They'll be other stuff on it)



> The reason is that I usually don't play with half-monster races, and I am tired of hearing "but it's in the Player's Handbook..." anytime I form a group to play in my local book store.



Hearing things you don't like is a price you pay for living in a free, democratic, republic. 



Libramarian said:


> Nah. Too much symmetry is ugly.



A lot of bilateral symmetry is kinda cute...


----------



## Minigiant

Buugipopuu said:


> Why?  If a player wants to play a Nymph or an Ethergaunt, why shouldn't the rules allow for that possibility?  Sure, there'll be social things to deal with, but if the player knows the consequences, they should be able to play whatever they want.  All fantasy races are not created equal, and ECL lets players who want to play powerful races do so without completely dominating the game with their extra powers.




Those powerful races should start as level 1 and near powerless. Their powers should grow with levels via feats or special class. 

Start as a small fey with only gliding, take a few special classes, themes, and feats to get beter flight, invisiblity, and music powers if you wish. Then full pixie. ECL kept you from starting with certain characters when the DM starts the game at low level. This way you don't have to search for a high level game or wait until your high level PC dies to play powerful races.


----------



## Buugipopuu

Minigiant said:


> But too little symmetry is boring.
> 
> Why do we have to be stuck with humans, short humans, scrawny humans, and stout humans?
> 
> Can't a brother get a few big dumb lummoxes, horned crafty red people, and a sneaky green people?




I don't think you know what symmetry means.


----------



## avin

steeldragons said:


> Basic/Beginner Set/"Classic" Game: Humans, Elves, Dwarves and Halflings. This is no brainer. Noone's going to be insulted with these offerings.




I bet there's more people playing Dragonborn than Halflings.

Halfling it's just classic, but popular? Not in my experience at least...



steeldragons said:


> Eladrin need to go the way of the dodo.




Kinda like them. High Elves from fey is more interesting than Grey or Wood... but I'd put them all in game, ASAP.



variant said:


> Again, if you are going to put niche races in the Player's Handbook, there is no reason to stop at the arbitrary number of 10. I have seen requests from people to play the most obscure monsters.
> 
> I am not arguing for them to be completely taken out of Dungeons & Dragons. Just that they shouldn't be in the Player's Handbook.




Then PHB1 should have Humans and Elves. Maybe Dwarves. The rest is niche. Halflings? Gnomes? Why people think they're more popular today than Dragonborn or Warforged or Tiefling?



malkav666 said:


> I really don't care what races are in the PHB with two conditions:
> 
> 1. They have to get the basics in there: Human, Dwarf, Elf




And that's it. No gnomes, no halflings... unless they also put Tieflings, Aasimar, Dragonborn and Warforged.



Buugipopuu said:


> Why?  If a player wants to play a Nymph or an Ethergaunt, why shouldn't the rules allow for that possibility?




They should be in, but not with Level Adjustment... we should use something along the lines of 3E's Savage Species... 



Mallus said:


> Hearing things you don't like is a price you pay for living in a free, democratic, republic.




Yes.

Some people love Halflings and think they are "core". I say "burn down hobbits and bring some other race instead".


----------



## Buugipopuu

Minigiant said:


> Those powerful races should start as level 1 and near powerless. Their powers should grow with levels via feats or special class.
> 
> Start as a small fey with only gliding, take a few special classes, themes, and feats to get beter flight, invisiblity, and music powers if you wish. Then full pixie. ECL kept you from starting with certain characters when the DM starts the game at low level. This way you don't have to search for a high level game or wait until your high level PC dies to play powerful races.




Okay, so you're just suggesting you make feats and classes for every single monster that ever gets printed?  Not viable.  With ECL any vaguely playable monster is a PC race just by slapping a single number at the bottom of its entry.  Savage Progressions (for monsters with HD) or NPC class levels (for LA) give players the opportunity to play powerful races at first level without needing to create piles and piles of feats to mimic monster abilities.


----------



## delericho

UngeheuerLich said:


> And still I can understand him.
> A d&d group usually looks like a freak show. IMHO the number of races available is too high and humans are to rarely found. Or at least usualy demihumans.
> It is a lot easier to create a world, where only a few races are encountered regularly.
> Some races should be playable, but rarer. One half-orc in the group is interesting... but when every character in the group is a "freak", then it gets strange very soon.




I can sympathise with this view, but this really does need to be a matter for the individual table. If the DM is looking for a "predominantly human" group, and his players want a "Mos Eisley Cantina" group, there's always going to be something of a disconnect, and there's really not too much the rules can do to prevent that.



> [MENTION=2167]Khaalis[/MENTION]: 4e does not play like battle tech, sry... those rumors are wrong... "the everything is core" and "players may dictate, what the DM has to do" mentality is what really hurt the game.




This I agree with. First in "Complete Arcane", then on Wizards.com and then in the 4e core rulebooks, I started seeing some very questionable statements to the effect that if a player wanted to play a 'freakshow' character, the DM should always work with the player to make the character work. This advice invariably failed to address the four other players at the table and their preferences, nor the many hours of work the DM had potentially put into his setting.

Simply put: some concepts just don't fit some campaigns.

I'm not advocating a return to some sort of "DM is God" false-utopia. Yes, groups absolutely should work together to create a satisfying game for all. And, yes, the "say yes" advice is pretty good as a general rule of thumb.

But late 3e, and all of 4e, did seem to swing too far towards player empowerment, at the expense of everything else.


----------



## Buugipopuu

avin said:
			
		

> They should be in, but not with Level Adjustment... we should use something along the lines of 3E's Savage Species...




But Savage Species did use level adjustment.  There were dead levels in savage progressions to offset them.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

@ delericho: I encourage you to read my post further down too...
I strongly recommend presenting all races besides human as an option in the first PHB. Truth to be told, you could even add human to the option and as a base, races don´t modify anything and is only dressing. (You may play a raceless cleric... which could look like an elf, a human or any default race.) And then as an option, all races could be presented.
I just thought, you would have a good consensus, if human was the default race... but maybe even that could be too much...


----------



## delericho

avin said:


> I bet there's more people playing Dragonborn than Halflings.
> 
> Halfling it's just classic, but popular? Not in my experience at least...
> 
> <snip lots>
> 
> Some people love Halflings and think they are "core". I say "burn down hobbits and bring some other race instead".




I don't know about the relative popularity of Halflings vs Dragonborn, but there is one almost overwhelming reason Halflings should be in the core. It's coming to a cinema near you in December.

Seriously, WotC should be doing everything they can to latch onto any surge in fantasy that results from the Hobbit movie. And part of that means making it as easy as possible to play the heroes from that film (and, indeed, the LotR films, not to mention the books).

Dropping any of the 'big 4' races would be a huge mistake.



Buugipopuu said:


> Okay, so you're just suggesting you make feats and classes for every single monster that ever gets printed?  Not viable.  With ECL any vaguely playable monster is a PC race just by slapping a single number at the bottom of its entry.  Savage Progressions (for monsters with HD) or NPC class levels (for LA) give players the opportunity to play powerful races at first level without needing to create piles and piles of feats to mimic monster abilities.




In theory, I would agree with that, but the LA mechanics in 3e just didn't work right, and I strongly suspect that was because they were fundamentally flawed, not just that they needed tweaked.

The best way to handle "monsters as PCs" for normally high-powered monsters is to provide a "Savage Species" type supplement, providing decent progressions (and specialised feats, powers, etc) for as many creatures as will fit.


----------



## delericho

UngeheuerLich said:


> @ delericho: I encourage you to read my post further down too...
> I strongly recommend presenting all races besides human as an option in the first PHB.




Sorry, I missed that.



> Truth to be told, you could even add human to the option and as a base, races don´t modify anything and is only dressing. (You may play a raceless cleric... which could look like an elf, a human or any default race.) And then as an option, all races could be presented.




Stunning idea. Truly, that is a really good thought.


----------



## RangerWickett

Can we compromise?

*PHB Races*
A write-up for Humans that gives brief examples of classic fantasy cultural niches humans fill. Includes the various racial perks humans get (probably extra feat and skill stuff). Have a sidebar that mentions human off-shoots, like half-elves, half-orcs, goliaths, and kalashtar.

Similar write-ups for dwarves, elves, and halflings. The dwarf section mentions duergar, derro, and muls. The elf section includes a side-bar mentioning elven sub-races, drow, and eladrin. The halfling section mentions hobbits, kender, and gnomes as other common short races (but emphasizes that only the bigger races get them confused).

Those are the only races with full write-ups. Then you have, like, a 4-page section of other races, listing only a one-sentence description, plus stats. Say at the start that many of these races are viewed as monsters (and so you can find more details in the Monster Manual), and that they'll receive fuller treatment in later books, including things like feats and prestige classes/paragon paths.

Then the exotic list can have:

aasimar
bugbear
changeling
deva
dragonborn
drow
duergar
eladrin
gnome
goblin
goliath
half-elf
half-orc
hobgoblin
kalashtar
kender
minotaur
orc
revenant
shifter
tiefling
treefolk
warforged

Sort of like the section at the end of the 4e Monster Manual.

(I think we can safely hold off on genasi, githyanki, githzerai, hamadryad, janni, pixie, satyr, shade, shardmind, vryloka, and wilden.)


----------



## Shemeska

RangerWickett said:


> (I think we can safely hold off on genasi,






I'll trade genasi (2e/3e genasi, not the tron guys from 4e) for half of the critters from your exotics list.


----------



## Buugipopuu

delericho said:


> In theory, I would agree with that, but the LA mechanics in 3e just didn't work right, and I strongly suspect that was because they were fundamentally flawed, not just that they needed tweaked.




LA is fine, WotC just made most things too high.  And they didn't take into account LA being absorbed by high racial HD most of the time.



> The best way to handle "monsters as PCs" for normally high-powered monsters is to provide a "Savage Species" type supplement, providing decent progressions (and specialised feats, powers, etc) for as many creatures as will fit.




That still uses LA though, you're just spreading it out.


----------



## Minigiant

Buugipopuu said:


> Okay, so you're just suggesting you make feats and classes for every single monster that ever gets printed?  Not viable.  With ECL any vaguely playable monster is a PC race just by slapping a single number at the bottom of its entry.  Savage Progressions (for monsters with HD) or NPC class levels (for LA) give players the opportunity to play powerful races at first level without needing to create piles and piles of feats to mimic monster abilities.




I could live with a Savage Species style progress.

My main two views on race are

1) Races should be special or they shouldn't waste pages on it. If elves are just scrawny humans then the two races are no different than the Empire vs the Revolutionists. If being a different race does little to your character, then they shouldn't have any mechanical differences. If I want to be an elf, I'll just roll a High Dex Low Con human.

2) Any humanoid the DM throws at me, I should be able to throw at him or her. If you make the orcs attack the village, then I should be able to play an orc from another tribe. Or an exile from your orc tribe. Or an orc travelled from a far away civilized orc kingdom.


----------



## BryonD

avin said:


> I bet there's more people playing Dragonborn than Halflings.




I'll take that bet.


I mean, you may be right if you only count 4E players.  But you didn't say that.  And there doesn't seem to be any reason to only count 4E players.


----------



## delericho

Buugipopuu said:


> LA is fine, WotC just made most things too high.  And they didn't take into account LA being absorbed by high racial HD most of the time.




I agree that the LAs were almost invariably too high, and I agree that there was a problem with high racial hit dice not absorbing LA.

However, there were significant additional problems with LA that weren't so simply resolved. Basically, the moment you started playing against type, your character was nerfed unless you happened to cherry-pick exactly the right powers. Compare the disparities between an Ogre Wizard 5 and an Orge Barbarian 5, versus those for a Half-orc of the same ECL in those classes.

The system absolutely could be made to work, and it was certainly better than just nothing (at least, assuming you allowed monster PCs at all). But it was best operated by having the DM and the player get together and thrash out an individual solution for the given PC. I'm not sure that's something that can be systemised at all.



> That still uses LA though, you're just spreading it out.




I'm aware of that. I'm not advocating that "Savage Species" is the solution; I'm advocating that a book _like_ "Savage Species" is the solution.


----------



## delericho

Minigiant said:


> 1) Races should be special or they shouldn't waste pages on it.




I agree, but I don't think "having stat adjustments" makes for a race being special. I would much prefer this to be handled by instead providing a load of powers/feats/items/whatever that are unique to the race. So, only dwarves get to take the "Son of the Mountain" power, only Halflings can take the "Refined Palate" feat, and only Elves can use a "Cloak of Elvenkind". Or whatever.

The rest of the specialness is really setting-specific stuff anyway, and I'm always wary about how much of that should be in the generic core rulebooks.



> 2) Any humanoid the DM throws at me, I should be able to throw at him or her.




Disagree absolutely. My goblins aren't some other culture with their own distinct mores and traditions, alien but fundamentally knowable. My goblins are _monsters_ - warped few spirits that fall through cracks in the Feywild into dark places of the world. They don't want your treasure, they can't be reasoned with; they want nothing other than _to eat you_. So, I'm sorry, but if you're playing in my game, you don't get to play a goblin, period.

I don't have a problem with monster PCs in general, but this has to remain an option under the DM's discretion. IMO, of course.


----------



## Buugipopuu

delericho said:


> However, there were significant additional problems with LA that weren't so simply resolved. Basically, the moment you started playing against type, your character was nerfed unless you happened to cherry-pick exactly the right powers. Compare the disparities between an Ogre Wizard 5 and an Orge Barbarian 5, versus those for a Half-orc of the same ECL in those classes.




Of course Ogres make worse Wizards than Half-Orcs.  They have a bigger Int penalty.  But really that's not a problem with LA, but a problem with primary casters being unable to multiclass effectively.  Fighter 6/Barbarian 5 synergises much better than Fighter 6/Wizard 5.


----------



## steeldragons

It may be my grognard showing <checks his fly>, but warforged shal always be the province of Eberron. If you're not playing in Eberron then warforged have no business being in the game...That's just my humble opinion.

Aside from that, when it comes to what races to include from the get go of DnD:TNG, less is more.

Give me 7-10 races that have a diverse number of individual abilities and/or specialities or interesting cultures.

That's enough.

For all of the rest...we just don't know how things will work yet. Will they have/use "LA"? Will they have built in Racial Special Abilities or lists of Racial Feats that are player's choice? We just don't know.

BUT, once the system is out, and you see how the different races will work...then it should be fairly simple to just make PCs of any race your game/DM wants to include.

You have an idea of what genasi can do...or nymphs...or gnolls or goblins or centaurs...whatever. Make something that is fairly "in line" with what the other races are capable of and have a ball.

If you're capable of thinking "outside the box" for the character concept, then I am sure you and your DM are more than capable of coming up with a fairly well "balanced" PC of whatever race you like. The books don't need to take up space telling you what they _are_.

They don't need to include everything for everyone could possibly want to play...else, you need to have a complete separate 200+ page "Monster Manual" of PC Races...and really, who wants that?

--SD


----------



## Minigiant

delericho said:


> I agree, but I don't think "having stat adjustments" makes for a race being special. I would much prefer this to be handled by instead providing a load of powers/feats/items/whatever that are unique to the race. So, only dwarves get to take the "Son of the Mountain" power, only Halflings can take the "Refined Palate" feat, and only Elves can use a "Cloak of Elvenkind". Or whatever.
> 
> The rest of the specialness is really setting-specific stuff anyway, and I'm always wary about how much of that should be in the generic core rulebooks.




I also wanna more than just ability adjustments. That is why I like dragonborn. They are not just stretched and shrunk humans. They are dragon people with breath attacks
I think elves should be speedy beings that rarely miss be it sword, shot, or spell. I liked 4E's Elven accuracy. I almost wish it were more than once a encounter.



> Disagree absolutely. My goblins aren't some other culture with their own distinct mores and traditions, alien but fundamentally knowable. My goblins are _monsters_ - warped few spirits that fall through cracks in the Feywild into dark places of the world. They don't want your treasure, they can't be reasoned with; they want nothing other than _to eat you_. So, I'm sorry, but if you're playing in my game, you don't get to play a goblin, period.
> 
> I don't have a problem with monster PCs in general, but this has to remain an option under the DM's discretion. IMO, of course.




Well then your goblins aren't humanoids. They are monster fey. It is okay that they are monster fey. But if you introduce beings with a less alien, animalistic, or monstrous mindset; it is only fair that I have access to it as a player.


----------



## Dausuul

steeldragons said:


> It may be my grognard showing <checks his fly>, but warforged shal always be the province of Eberron. If you're not playing in Eberron then warforged have no business being in the game...That's just my humble opinion.




I agree.



steeldragons said:


> Aside from that, when it comes to what races to include from the get go of DnD:TNG, less is more.
> 
> Give me 7-10 races that have a diverse number of individual abilities and/or specialities or interesting cultures.




7-10 races is your idea of "less is more?" Wow.

My idea of "less is more" is one race: Humans. Or, failing that, 4 races: Human, elf, dwarf, halfling.


----------



## Khaalis

delericho said:


> Disagree absolutely. My goblins aren't some other culture with their own distinct mores and traditions, alien but fundamentally knowable. My goblins are _monsters_ - warped few spirits that fall through cracks in the Feywild into dark places of the world. They don't want your treasure, they can't be reasoned with; they want nothing other than _to eat you_. So, I'm sorry, but if you're playing in my game, you don't get to play a goblin, period.
> 
> I don't have a problem with monster PCs in general, but this has to remain an option under the DM's discretion. IMO, of course.




This is a a perfect example of what I was saying about Settings. Settings are all subjective, and every game is different. It really doesn't matter what is in the "book" when it comes to what people allow/disallow, like/dislike. One group may hate and disallow pecks as players even though they're in the PHB, but love and allow orcs even though they are a "monster".  The problem seems to be coming down to WHO gets to say what is a "PHB Race" and what is a "Monster".

I am almost to the point of thinking that the PHB shouldn't include ANY races at all other than human.  In reality, far too many people disagree on what is "monstrous" and what isn't.  If you were to truly walk into an Elf, they'd be as alien to you as waking up to find your dog could talk. Yet they suffer form the "human with pointy ears" syndrome.

I have found over the years that basically ANY "Intelligent" species could be a player race (e.g. Palladium's Rifts).  Perhaps the solution is to simply include humans in the PHB and then add a "{Race X} as a Player Race" entry to any race in the Monster Manual that could also be a player race, including elves, dwarves, orcs, etc.  

It would then be up to the Setting Book (or the DM in a homebrew) to throw the switches by having a list of playable races in that setting. For instance Eberron has its own races that have become very popular but are setting specific.  Should a Warforged be a "core" PHB race?  Probably not, but the rules should be readily available for those gaming groups that want them, without having to wait X years for a new version of the setting to be released (if ever at all).


----------



## Li Shenron

Minigiant said:


> But core doesn't have to be boring.
> 5E is a unity edition, yes. It should still be D&D. D&D is a game with a load of intelligent races walking around. Many of them are humanoid or somewhat humanoid. Is it top much to have 2 or 3 of the races than surround the kingdom playable if they aren't brainwashed into evil? There are goblins, orcs, drow, gnomes, and the like right over there but you can't be one?




What are you talking about? You CAN be one 

I can only speak for the 3ed because I don't play 4e, but* in the 3.0 DMG* there already were guidelines about playing monstrous characters. They were not particularly detailed, and they obviously didn't have all of them, but _if you just owned the three core books_ of 3ed (obviously you needed the monster manual for their stats) you could already play a goblin, an orc or a drow, and the latter was as fully detailed as the base elf, only in the DMG rather than the PHB.

There's a subtle but important difference with character stuff being in the DMG rather than the PHB. Put it in the PHB and *everyone* who is playing the game knows they are available player options. Put it in the DMG and at least you have the benefit of doubt that since it's the DM's book, you have at least to discuss a little about being permitted to use it.


----------



## steeldragons

Dausuul said:


> 7-10 races is your idea of "less is more?" Wow.




Well, I mean, the original 1e was 7. If you take into account Dragonborn, Tieflings and/or Eladrin <shudder> or Drow or something to round it up to 10 and make the 4e-ers happy...that's enough.

All of the other "Well, what about X" and "I want a Y and the 'rules' should let me/tell me how to do that!"

Even the "old school" list of 3 kinds of halflings, 6 (or was it more?) kinds of elves, "normal" and deep and forest gnomes, and later a "half-this" for practically ANYthing you could imagine from some extra-dimensional place (How many people, exactly, WERE shtuppin' the devil princes or some djinn?!), "half-vampires"???!!! Awuuuuh? Full blooded werewolves, etc. is an unnecessary amount of space and complication that "beginner's" of the [new] game do not need! 

So in a "Let's take everything from every edition and keep everyone happy" kind of way...it is simply not feasible, or even possible, as "core" for a new system.

In that respect, yes, 7-10 is "Less" while still offering a suitably wide range of options for players.


--SD


----------



## Klaus

UngeheuerLich said:


> And still I can understand him.
> A d&d group usually looks like a freak show.




Not according to the available data. In a seminar at GenCon, it was mentioned that the vast (and I mean vaaaaaast) majority of characters made up in the CB were humans.


----------



## Mallus

steeldragons said:


> ...6 (or was it more?) kinds of elves...



Let's see, from memory (# of elven races in AD&D, including UA)...

High 
Gray
Wood
Wild
Valley
Dark 

I believe it's 6!


----------



## steeldragons

I would also like to add my vote for guidelines to alternate human cultures.

My own world has 3 distinct Human cultural types, +2 two nations that are basically emalgamations of those, 1 xeno-phobic NPC human race and 1 "lost"/forgotten one (also not availabe for PCs).

My campaign world has a diverse number of separate non-human "races", something like 12 or so...but having at least a few different ways to "do" humans...and/or optional guidelines for doing so, would be a welcome addition to the game, imho.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

avin said:


> I want to be able to start a Planescape game from day one.



I would too, but I doubt they'd have Githzerai, Bariaur or Aasimar and Genasi available from day one.


----------



## Holy Bovine

Danzauker said:


> So, because YOU don't have the strength of will to enforce the decisions you make in your campaigns, EVERYBODY else must miss something?




He's a gamer - of course this is the way things should be!!

I don't like polymorph - ban it!!


----------



## avin

BryonD said:


> I'll take that bet.
> 
> I mean, you may be right if you only count 4E players.  But you didn't say that.  And there doesn't seem to be any reason to only count 4E players.




Even counting only 4E players my bet remains: I bet there's more people playing Dragonborn than Halflings. Or gnomes.

Dragons fascinate some people. Half-dragons and Disciple of Dragons were popular choices on 3.5. 



Buugipopuu said:


> But Savage Species did use level adjustment.  There were dead levels in savage progressions to offset them.




You are right, my memory betrays me.



delericho said:


> I don't know about the relative popularity of Halflings vs Dragonborn, but there is one almost overwhelming reason Halflings should be in the core. It's coming to a cinema near you in December.




And there will be a lot of people creating Dwarf Fighters. Halflings? I'm not so sure... when LOTR launched I remember a massive wave of Elven Rangers playing on my tables... Halflings? Just one.



delericho said:


> Dropping any of the 'big 4' races would be a huge mistake.




Agreed. I find weird people complaining about more options in a RPG game...


----------



## Kobold Avenger

I certainly think it's a lot easier to include every race that was included in the first PHB of every edition, than it is with classes that they're trying to do.  And it's really only the Dragonborn that are 4e, though you can sort of argue they're 3e because Races of the Dragon.  Tieflings are a completely 2e race, even though the art depicting them just sucks in 4e compared to more varied the 2e art.

And D&D needs to move away from strict adherence to Tolkien.  And the argument "well they should be milking the Hobbit" is not a good one either, because what if it doesn't do as well as they think.  Where does that leave them?  Should they just drop clerics that heal, and barbarians because that's not Tolkien?  Or do away with monsters such as Beholders and Mind Flayers because they're not Tolkien?  Same argument applies for races that aren't Humans, Elves, Dwarves or Halflings.

They should instead include races that are D&D because it's D&D.

I say the more races the better.


----------



## Minigiant

Li Shenron said:


> What are you talking about? You CAN be one
> 
> I can only speak for the 3ed because I don't play 4e, but* in the 3.0 DMG* there already were guidelines about playing monstrous characters. They were not particularly detailed, and they obviously didn't have all of them, but _if you just owned the three core books_ of 3ed (obviously you needed the monster manual for their stats) you could already play a goblin, an orc or a drow, and the latter was as fully detailed as the base elf, only in the DMG rather than the PHB.
> 
> There's a subtle but important difference with character stuff being in the DMG rather than the PHB. Put it in the PHB and *everyone* who is playing the game knows they are available player options. Put it in the DMG and at least you have the benefit of doubt that since it's the DM's book, you have at least to discuss a little about being permitted to use it.




As long as the classes they regulate to the DMV are supported, I can live with the weirder races being in the DMV. But it they just toss them back there whatever with way because "nobody wants to be an orc". What they did with 4E was terrible. Just tossed some races in the back of the book. No sense of balance. No racial feats. Just "here's your shifter" Even the DMs couldn't use them.

Back to the PHB. D&D should be D&D. The PHB should contain all the races you'd expect in 75% of the adventurer taverns and civilized kingdoms of the settings. It would be sad to me if we get a bunch of stretchy skrinky humans.


----------



## Incenjucar

2E and 4E tieflings really should be made into seperate races, or at least subraces of a general "planetouched" race group. They're both perfectly good concepts on their own.

Relying on Tolkein is really, really sad. There is so much more to fantasy than one man's works. We don't need to drool so much over a single fantasy franchise that we start getting elven cybernetics rules again like we did in 2E. LotR should be represented, sure, but not the focus of the game. LotR already has its own RPG.


----------



## avin

Kobold Avenger said:


> Tieflings are a completely 2e race, even though the art depicting them just sucks in 4e compared to more varied the 2e art.




I can't stand 4E tieflings... in my mind they're still Di'Terlizzi tieflings and Bael Turath does not exist.

One thing is for sure... races in DDN PHB's should not have Level Adjustments. LA is just a headache with no much benefits. 

I would just normalize races, instead. Nerfing strong abilities a bit, bumping weak ones.

PS. [MENTION=63508]Minigiant[/MENTION] Elven accuracy rocks and should be in.


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun

Going down to four races, which may or may not even be all that popular outside of the Human, totally betrays their whole Uniting the Editions ideal.  Every edition of the game has had half-orcs in the PHB besides 2E.  Tieflings and Dragonborn are some of the most popular races in 4E, and Tieflings have been popular since before Planescape.  NO edition of the game has had just Humans, Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings outside the original version of the game.  They would piss off the vast majority of their player base by going to just four.  They want to sell books, and not having a fair amount of races (most people are looking for ten-twelve) is a surefire way to ensure they don't sell to a majority of players.

I sincerely hope they don't expect me to buy some stupid-f'ing box in order to play the game too, PHB should have all the base options and modules to fit the play styles of each edition.  If they want to release a box for people that want a basic experience, they can do it as a separate, not-required product.


----------



## delericho

Minigiant said:


> Well then your goblins aren't humanoids. They are monster fey.




No moreso than Eladrin.



> But if you introduce beings with a less alien, animalistic, or monstrous mindset; it is only fair that I have access to it as a player.




Why, exactly?

Players have a huge array of game elements to play with. 4e has dozens of playable races, dozens of classes, and hundreds of powers. 3e likewise. 5e, after an initial period when they just haven't got around to releasing everything yet, will no doubt also have a huge array of options.

You have enough. It is absolutely not unreasonable for the DM to simply say, "these options are off-limits."


----------



## steeldragons

delericho said:


> Players have a huge array of game elements to play with. 4e has dozens of playable races, dozens of classes, and hundreds of powers. 3e likewise. 5e, after an initial period when they just haven't got around to releasing everything yet, will no doubt also have a huge array of options.
> 
> You have enough. It is absolutely not unreasonable for the DM to simply say, "these options are off-limits."




Agreed. A DM, any I daresay "good" DM, knows how to say "No"...or NOT. If they like playin' with the kitchen sink of races and the bathtub full of powers/feats/skills/classes/what have you, and that's what their group likes/wants. Then bully for you/them.

The entire point of building 5e as a "modular" system with options, options, options...if to ba able to say, "We're having this. We're not having that. We conducting this portion of play with these rules but not those" and each DM/group can make things just the way they want.

The arguments "this MUST" and "that HAS TO be in" to make 3e-ers or 4e-ers or Old Skoolers happy" is all, really, a) completely moot until we see what actually IS in the new game and b) a bunch of nonsense. If the game is going to offer your an optional module to play what you want to play, then who cares if _this _is "core" or _that _is in the "default" in the next PHB. You'll still be able to play the game you like.

Modular. Options. Build and play the game as you want it. And stop wasting everyone's time with "this has to be in or I won't play it...it won't be _fair_ to my generation of gamers...or your generation of gamers...or your setting's are stupid...or my half-dragonborn/half-vampire/half-paladin warlock is sooo cool it HAS to have multiple pages of rules the way I want it...or halflings/hobbits are soooo yesterday they should be shot....or else!"

I have my preferences. I have my opinions of what might work best, or make a game "most fun" _for me_. As previously stated, I think Eladrin were a pointless addition to the game. But...

The history of the game did not _start _with 3 or 4e...what came before was not "useless" or "wrong". By the same token, nor did the game _end_ after 2e. What came after is not "badwrongfun" for many people...an entire generation of gamers, at this point.

Because 3.x is what you *[and I'm using the communal "you" throughout here, delericho, not at all meaning you, specifically]* like does not make it the end all be all. Because 1e is what _I_ like does not make it that either.

Saying "_what if_ they did XYZ" or "I'd _like_ to see ABC" is all fun and cool. But arguments about what should and shouldn't be "in" are pointless at this stage of the [not yet made/published!] game.  

As always, play...and defend...what you like. But not at the expense of everyone else's preferences, playstyle or game system of choice *or *the game's _*full *_history.

That's all, I think...on that...and apologies for veering off topic. I'm spending too much time in these "New Horizons" threads.
--SD


----------



## nightwalker450

I'm for more options, and let GM's sort them out.

Personally Warforged are always very popular in my home game (we tend towards Eberron style or at least built on ruins of technomagic civilizations), and my favorite race has become the Mul (if they just had a system for half-breeds I could do this on my own), I like the hardy, tireless race. But I know there needs to be limits as to what is included in the core.

I'm fine with all the 4e races, but if I had to choose between Gnome and Half-Orc, or Tiefling and Dragonborn... I'd rather wait for Tiefling's and Dragonborn.


----------



## WarlockLord

Does it actually hurt anyone if a dude plays a tiefling?  No?  He's going to have fun?  Then just let him do it.


----------



## Agamon

WarlockLord said:


> Does it actually hurt anyone if a dude plays a tiefling?  No?  He's going to have fun?  Then just let him do it.




Exactly.  And if the DM decides there are no tieflings it shouldn't hurt anyone either.  I don't understand the reason for this thread.

Both my first 3e and 4e campaigns, the PCs could be human only.  And no one cried.  Go figure.


----------



## Mattachine

My current campaign is humans only, even though some other races exist. As a DM, writing the game world and such, I am entitled to as much fun as everyone else.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

I think that separation of biological racial features from background features would allow for variety in human types, elven types, etc. This is hopefully where themes/backgrounds come in.


----------



## curupira

Minigiant said:


> I like the half orc and tiefling. There should be a race with a bonus to each of the ability score.
> 
> Half-orc easilty fits the "Strong" race. I believe any setting with a bunch of races should have a "Strong".  And Half-orcs also fills the "Big idiot" role.




Fine, but why not full-blown orcs instead of half-orcs? That "serious backstory implied" is just stupid. With neutral orc tribes in the monster manual, it would be not that hard to justify.


----------



## Libramarian

Mallus said:


> A lot of bilateral symmetry is kinda cute...




Be that as it may, when it comes to RPG systems I find symmetry that feels kinda contrived and OCDish to be a turnoff.

But I think Minigiant is just looking for any justification he can get to have as many races as possible


----------



## Li Shenron

steeldragons said:


> The arguments "this MUST" and "that HAS TO be in" to make 3e-ers or 4e-ers or Old Skoolers happy" is all, really, a) completely moot until we see what actually IS in the new game and b) a bunch of nonsense. If the game is going to offer your an optional module to play what you want to play, then who cares if _this _is "core" or _that _is in the "default" in the next PHB. You'll still be able to play the game you like.
> 
> ...
> 
> Saying "_what if_ they did XYZ" or "I'd _like_ to see ABC" is all fun and cool. But arguments about what should and shouldn't be "in" are pointless at this stage of the [not yet made/published!] game.




Well but if we say these things _after_ the game is published, isn't that too late to complain? I think a lot of people write their opinions strongly on WotC boards because they hope that the designers will in fact make some decisions based on what they perceive as common feelings and preferences. It's a sort of feedback, after all.

About the modularity, what you say is absolutely true for the mechanics, but here we're discussing the fluff. Well not exactly the fluff since races also have crunch, but what I mean is that once you have set the PHB races, you can be sure this choice _will_ determine what will be in published settings: not all of them, but some for sure, especially all the new settings. Take a look at what happened at Forgotten Realms in 4e: since Dragonborn were in the PHB, they had to allocate them in Faerun too. FR of course has a history of ridiculous world-shattering events to reflect edition changes... But imagine what would happen now if 5e designers decide to put a new race in the PHB, something outrageously lame for the majority of gamers but for some reason the chief designers think it's cool: then you will have that race in half the settings published for 5e. 

Of course you can always say "I just don't use that race", but it's not the same thing as not using a mechanic, which (if 5e does modularity properly) means you will have to ignore a bunch of feats/spells/etc per book. To eliminate a race from a setting and its adventures you'll have a harder job ahead IMHO.


----------



## avin

curupira said:


> Fine, but why not full-blown orcs instead of half-orcs? That "serious backstory implied" is just stupid. With neutral orc tribes in the monster manual, it would be not that hard to justify.




Agreed.

Like it or not, World of Warcraft made Orcs popular.

I would change Half Orc for a full Orc in a Heartbeat, leaving the half breed for a later book.

Goliath (that can be refluffed as Half Giant) would get the spot of the big race.


----------



## harlokin

avin said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Like it or not, World of Warcraft made Orcs popular.
> 
> I would change Half Orc for a full Orc in a Heartbeat, leaving the half breed for a later book.
> 
> Goliath (that can be refluffed as Half Giant) would get the spot of the big race.




Or steal the Warhammer Ogre, which has far more personality than the DnD version, for the "big race".


----------



## Minigiant

Libramarian said:


> But I think Minigiant is just looking for any justification he can get to have as many races as possible




Don't tell 'em my secrets. (The hlfact that my home setting is New York City as a giant city-plane with each neighborhood as their own minikingdom has noting to do with this)

I just don't want to be forced to play racial stereotypes for a year as I wait for the Race book because I am only given a small batch of shoehorned, poorly supported, similar races and the modular options are low.


----------



## BryonD

avin said:


> Even counting only 4E players my bet remains: I bet there's more people playing Dragonborn than Halflings. Or gnomes.



I think you misunderstood me.

Part of my point was that if you count *only* 4E fans then PERHAPS you are correct.  I don't know.

But if you don't limit it to that group then I am quite certain the count would shift well away from you.



> Dragons fascinate some people. Half-dragons and Disciple of Dragons were popular choices on 3.5.



Moving the goal posts already, eh?  

Agreed.
But gnomes and halflings were *more* popular.


----------



## Libramarian

Kobold Avenger said:


> And D&D needs to move away from strict adherence to Tolkien.  And the argument "well they should be milking the Hobbit" is not a good one either, because what if it doesn't do as well as they think.  Where does that leave them?  Should they just drop clerics that heal, and barbarians because that's not Tolkien?  Or do away with monsters such as Beholders and Mind Flayers because they're not Tolkien?  Same argument applies for races that aren't Humans, Elves, Dwarves or Halflings.



As with most with arguments that start with "same argument applies for", it doesn't. I like the contrast of vanilla Tolkienesque PCs vs. weird, wacky D&D monsters.



> They should instead include races that are D&D because it's D&D.
> 
> I say the more races the better.




Nah I would much rather have centaurs, minotaurs or even pixies/fairies rather than some new IP cut from whole cloth.

I know it's crazy, what with D&D being nearly 40 years old and all, but I'm pretty conservative in my preferences for the elements in the game.

I think relentless bloat and faddish "updating" got us into the current edition warzone.

It's time to "age gracefully". Like uh...Meryl Streep. 4e felt like it was just trying too hard at times. More like Joan Rivers. Or that weird cat lady.

When you're pushing 40 you don't need to try to cram yourself into the hippest clothes anymore. It's ok to have a classic look.

I would be happy if 1e AD&D set the basic game concepts in stone forever.

(Of course individual home campaigns can go wild).


----------



## Estlor

I've always been a fan of this 7 race dynamic:

Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Gnome, Dragonborn, and Goliath.

You're not going to get D&D without the first five.  Even if you've never played one of those and you don't know someone who has, there's just something... wrong... about those races not being in the PHB.  (And yes, gnomes belong.  They've been trying to get rid of them for two editions and it hasn't worked.)

I really liked the 3e fluff for goliaths in Races of Stone.  The fact that they slide into the otherwise largely ignored "big race" design space just makes it sweeter.

The half- races never did much for me, but I understand why they exist.  Personally, what I would do is design up the races as two tiers of complexity - a base level and an (optional) subrace level.  If you only play with base races, you end up with a picture that looks a lot like BECMI or AD&D.  Add in subraces and you start to get more of a 4e look to the races.  To that end, here's an example of how it would work.

Human - Mankind, Half-Elf, Half-Orc, Tiefling, Deva, Shadar-Kai
Elf - High, Wood, Dark
Dwarf - Hill, Duergar
Halfling - Shire, Kender
Gnome - Earth, Forest, Tinker
etc.

So, speaking in 4e terms, if you play a dwarf, regardless of subrace you'd get +2 Con, +2 to Dungeoneering, +5 bonus to poison saves, and the ability to move at your base speed in heavy armor/load.  If you're DM uses subraces and you pick Hill, you also get a +2 to Endurance, proficiency with throwing and war hammers, stand your ground, and the minor action second wind.  If your buddy picks duergar, he gets deep speech, infernal quills, +2 to some other skill - that kind of thing.  You're both dwarves, you just have different (yet balanced) optional packages on top of the core.


----------



## avin

BryonD said:


> I think you misunderstood me.
> 
> Part of my point was that if you count *only* 4E fans then PERHAPS you are correct.  I don't know.
> 
> But if you don't limit it to that group then I am quite certain the count would shift well away from you.




Experience may vary. But around here Gnomes and Halflings have been less than unpopular. 

Maybe Wotc has some real data in their pockets... but I can only speak about what I've seen.



BryonD said:


> Moving the goal posts already, eh?
> 
> Agreed.
> But gnomes and halflings were *more* popular.




Have seen 3 Disciple of Dragons and 2 Half Dragons on what I consider my biggest D&D experience, years playing 3E. 

One Gnome.
Zero Hobbits.

Well, all in all, Wotc will probably extend "all PHB classes" to "all PHB races" for DDN. Just hope they go back to 2E's Tieflings.


----------



## BryonD

avin said:


> Experience may vary. But around here Gnomes and Halflings have been less than unpopular.
> 
> Maybe Wotc has some real data in their pockets... but I can only speak about what I've seen.
> 
> Have seen 3 Disciple of Dragons and 2 Half Dragons on what I consider my biggest D&D experience, years playing 3E.
> 
> One Gnome.
> Zero Hobbits.



In the interest of sharing personal anecdotes.

I've seen one half dragon in the past 12 years.
I've seen around 5 halflings and probably a dozen gnomes.

Humans are by far #1. 




Interestingly, the half dragon was my own concoction from about 1 year before they were published.  A new player got his character killed in a session in which he wasn't present.  I normally take some pains to avoid that, but it was unavoidable this time just because of the way things happened.  To make it up to him I had a gold dragon kinda restore / reincarnate / hand wave him back to life....




Also, just this month I started a game for my 14 yr old daughter and two friends.  Elves were the CLEAR race of choice.    Admittedly, dragonborn were not presented as an option.


----------



## MoonSong

> Maybe Wotc has some real data in their pockets... but I can only speak about what I've seen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *BryonD*
> 
> 
> _Moving the goal posts already, eh?
> 
> Agreed.
> But gnomes and halflings were *more* popular._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have seen 3 Disciple of Dragons and 2 Half Dragons on what I consider my biggest D&D experience, years playing 3E.
> 
> One Gnome.
> Zero Hobbits.
Click to expand...


A rule of thumb so you can gauge it, if you have interacted with less than 30 other players it means nothing, if it is more than 120 then you have a pretty good panorame. Anything in between is in the realm of speculation.

Personaly I hope they leave gnomes and half-orcs on the core, and since I stated I don't have anything against them, Tieflings and Dragonborn are cool to have too anything between 10-12 races would be ideal (probably with the added common/uncommon/rare distinction)


----------



## Dausuul

avin said:


> Well, all in all, Wotc will probably extend "all PHB classes" to "all PHB races" for DDN.




If they go with their "common/uncommon/rare" scheme, I'd be cool with this. (I really like that scheme, by the way. It's a brilliant solution to the desire to support warlords and such out of the box, while making it clear that players should not assume those classes are available.)



avin said:


> Just hope they go back to 2E's Tieflings.




My guess is they'll have 2E-style tieflings with the 4E version as one particular family or strain. After all, 2E tieflings encompassed a wide range of fiendish traits and origins. So if there's a tiefling clan, call them "Turathi tieflings," with diabolic origins, big horns, and long tails, that should satisfy both 4E and 2E tiefling fans.


----------



## Sunseeker

variant said:


> I didn't like it when the half-orc appeared in 3e, and I liked it even less when i saw Tiefling in 4e. These types of half races should just be stuffed in some addon book somewhere. Give me the basic races in the PHB: Human, elf, halfling, and dwarf.
> 
> The reason is that I usually don't play with half-monster races, and I am tired of hearing "but it's in the Player's Handbook..." anytime I form a group to play in my local book store.




The starter set should include 5 races however it's assembled, assuming they maintain the 5-man party centric design they had in 4e.  Everyone can play a different class and race right from the get-go.  

I can appreciate that you don't like certain races, we all don't.  However, Tiefling is one of my fav races pretty much well, ever.  So I am staunchly against your position, unless you're willing to give up halfling, I hate halflings and will gladly compromise.

Personally, every PHB should have 4-5 races in it.  There's not a particularly large sum of material needed to add the base material for the race and a short fluff article.  And I really don't wnat to pay 20-30 bucks for a manuale that only provides info on one race.


HOWEVER: what I would REALLY like to see is the PHB present the "base" races: Human, Elf, Dwarf, and then provide "variants", sun elf, moon elf, drow, halfling(small human), tiefling(demonic human), dragonbon, aasimir(celestial human).  ect...  as just small additional stat blocks.  Then they could later publish entire mini-manuals focused on expanding upon just a single one of those variants with feats, abilities, powers, "options", history, ect...  I would be fine with that.

But I don't want to be limited to human, "skinny hippy human", "short, fat, drunk human" "small clever human" for months until additional race manuals are released.


----------



## Jeff Carlsen

This thread got long quickly, so I didn't read all of it. Here is a solution, and I'm actually quite confident in it:

Include a lot of races in the core book, but label them.

Standard: human, elf, dwarf, halfling
Rare: half-elf, gnome, half-orc
Exotic: tiefling, warforged, ect.

In the character creation rules, specifically say, "The DM must choose which races are available for PCs to play. For example, for a classic game, the DM might choose only to allow standard races. Unless he or she says otherwise, you must always ask the DM before choosing an exotic race."

Thus, the mechanism is right there in the Players Handbook for players to see and expect. The DM _gives _you access to races. He doesn't _take_ them away.


----------



## Sunseeker

Jeff Carlsen said:


> This thread got long quickly, so I didn't read all of it. Here is a solution, and I'm actually quite confident in it:
> 
> Include a lot of races in the core book, but label them.
> 
> Standard: human, elf, dwarf, halfling
> Rare: half-elf, gnome, half-orc
> Exotic: tiefling, warforged, ect.
> 
> In the character creation rules, specifically say, "The DM must choose which races are available for PCs to play. For example, for a classic game, the DM might choose only to allow standard races. Unless he or she says otherwise, you must always ask the DM before choosing an exotic race."
> 
> Thus, the mechanism is right there in the Players Handbook for players to see and expect. The DM _gives _you access to races. He doesn't _take_ them away.




I really don't like the PHB telling me which races are going to populate my world.  What if I want to play a campaign set in the battle between Tieflings and Dragonborn?  Neither are going to be rare in that situation.  Wizards should NEVER be telling me what should or shouldn't be in my game, or what my players should or shouldn't be playing.


----------



## MoonSong

shidaku said:


> Personally, every PHB should have 4-5 races in it.  There's not a particularly large sum of material needed to add the base material for the race and a short fluff article.  And I really don't wnat to pay 20-30 bucks for a manuale that only provides info on one race.
> 
> 
> HOWEVER: what I would REALLY like to see is the PHB present the "base" races: Human, Elf, Dwarf, and then provide "variants", sun elf, moon elf, drow, halfling(small human), tiefling(demonic human), dragonbon, aasimir(celestial human).  ect...  as just small additional stat blocks.  Then they could later publish entire mini-manuals focused on expanding upon just a single one of those variants with feats, abilities, powers, "options", history, ect...  I would be fine with that.




There shouldn't be 'many' PHBs, just one with a possible second one released about halfway through the game's lifespan, and it should provide support for about 11-12 races and a similar number of classes, having more than one just encourages what happened in 4e: few races and classes per book with lots of extra unnescessary stuff, which meant that some playstyles went over supported while the rest had none for a year or two. 

Iconic Half-breeds (Tieflings and Half-orcs) and the Halflings, should be included as is and not as subraces, they are distinct enough from regular humans (and Halflings are truly different, not just humans-but-shorter), and the extra complexity of them being a subsystem just punishes new players wanting to use them or players that want both simplicity and play as them, however I'm all in for some way to decide the level of elfness or humaness of a Half-Elf as an option. The subrace and personalization stuff should go in an appendix.


----------



## Savage Wombat

I don't mind if the players have the option of playing more "exotic" races.  But if having a race means that there's a dozen or so race-specific feats or options, than having 10-12 races means the PHB has over a hundred feats that are not available to 90% of players, and the problem gets worse in future books.  

The more races they want to support, the simpler the racial benefits need to be.


----------



## Sunseeker

KaiiLurker said:


> There shouldn't be 'many' PHBs, just one with a possible second one released about halfway through the game's lifespan, and it should provide support for about 11-12 races and a similar number of classes, having more than one just encourages what happened in 4e: few races and classes per book with lots of extra unnescessary stuff, which meant that some playstyles went over supported while the rest had none for a year or two.



I have no problem with multiple PHB's with fewer races and classes provided that each one gets a lot of support in each book.  I do agree that I do not want to see a lot of PHBs with only barebones material on classes and races.  



> The subrace and personalization stuff should go in an appendix.



Personally I would present it right along side the race just for comparison and noticing it.  I enjoy subraces and really don't want to see them sent to the back of the bus.


----------



## Jeff Carlsen

shidaku said:


> I really don't like the PHB telling me which races are going to populate my world.  What if I want to play a campaign set in the battle between Tieflings and Dragonborn?  Neither are going to be rare in that situation.  Wizards should NEVER be telling me what should or shouldn't be in my game, or what my players should or shouldn't be playing.




Then do so. This isn't telling you what should or shouldn't be in your game. It's merely setting up a series of common baselines. It's supposed to be a tool, not a shackle. Still, the language could be improved a little. Add

"For a classic game, the DM might limit PCs to common races. A more exotic setting might have different set of permitted and restricted races."

The point is to make establishing the available races and classes a standard part of any campaign, and to give tools for doing so.


----------



## avin

BryonD said:


> Also, just this month I started a game for my 14 yr old daughter and two friends.  Elves were the CLEAR race of choice.    Admittedly, dragonborn were not presented as an option.




That *seems *to happen everywhere: Humans > Elves > everything else.


----------



## avin

KaiiLurker said:


> A rule of thumb so you can gauge it, if you have interacted with less than 30 other players it means nothing, if it is more than 120 then you have a pretty good panorame. Anything in between is in the realm of speculation.
> 
> Personaly I hope they leave gnomes and half-orcs on the core, and since I stated I don't have anything against them, Tieflings and Dragonborn are cool to have too anything between 10-12 races would be ideal (probably with the added common/uncommon/rare distinction)




More than 30, less than 120.

Of course I'm on the realm of speculation, still, I can only talk about what I see


----------



## Tallifer

Li Shenron said:


> Of course you can always say "I just don't use that race", but it's not the same thing as not using a mechanic, which (if 5e does modularity properly) means you will have to ignore a bunch of feats/spells/etc per book. To eliminate a race from a setting and its adventures you'll have a harder job ahead IMHO.




That is one of the most baffling and unfounded statements I have read here. There is nothing easier than refluffing races and other stuff in a campaign setting or adventure. I started runnign the Scales of War adventure path in my own fantastic version of India: I just renamed everything, often as I went. I used google to print out pictures of buildings, rooms, people and monsters which come from Hindoo mythology.

In a different game, the dungeon master decided to run a campaign in Eberron using an Old School retroclone. I decided to play a Kalashtar Disciple of the Light: I just rolled up an Elfin Cleric and refluffed all the prayers as psionic mind disciplines. The entire sum of my effort was writing Kalashtar on the top of my character sheet.

In another campaign which unfortunataely fizzled, I set the whole thing in a sort of anachronistic Mediaeval/Renaissance/Thirty Years War Germany and I allowed any race with the proviso that it was refluffed as a human.


----------



## Incenjucar

Personally, I'd like for there to eventually be one (and, when possible, exactly one) race for every major biological race concept. Once you have that, you can tack on whatever culture as needed.

From my blog on monster races for 4E:

Here's what 4E has:

*Concept.....Race* 
Amphibian.....Bullywug
Angel.....Deva
Beast.....Minotaur, Gnoll
Bird.....Kenku
Arthropod.....Thri-Kreen
Dragon.....Dragonborn
Elemental.....Genasi
Fey..... Elf, Gnome, Eladrin, Drow, Half-Elf, Wilden
Fiend.....Tiefling, Duergar
Giant.....Goliath
Construct.....Warforged, Shardmind
Plant.....Wilden
Mutant.....Bladeling, Githyanki, Githzerai
Reptile.....Dragonborn, Kobold
Savage Humanoid..... Half-Orc, Bugbear, Goblin, Hobgoblin, Orc
Shadow.....Shadar-Kai, Shade
Shape Shifter.....Changeling, Shifter
Short.....Halfling, Gnome, Goblin, Kobold
Spirit.....Kalashtar
Stocky..... Dwarf, Duergar, Mul
Undead.....Revenant, Vryloka


*Here's what 4E is missing, with suggested races:*

*Concept.....Race* 
Aberrant.....Foulspawn
Fish.....Kuo-toa, Sahuagin          
Fungus.....Myconid
Mollusk.....??? (mind flayers don’t really belong here)
Ooze.....Keeper
Primal.....Shifters? Otherwise Tulgar or Werejackal
Worm.....Psurlon


----------



## Tallifer

Savage Wombat said:


> I don't mind if the players have the option of playing more "exotic" races.  But if having a race means that there's a dozen or so race-specific feats or options, than having 10-12 races means the PHB has over a hundred feats that are not available to 90% of players, and the problem gets worse in future books.
> 
> The more races they want to support, the simpler the racial benefits need to be.




Death to all racial feats!

I agree that they are the worst sort of rules bloat. I love having all the races available. But racial feats and powers mean that vast stretches of print are completely irrelevant for most players in any one group.

Class features, feats and powers can always provide some interest, because players can multi-class. But your race is fixed.

Besides which, racial feats and powers only reinforce the min-max approach to races.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

I'm sure it's way to late in this thread (and I stopped reading after a few pages so it might have been mentioned) to point out that there's evidence that 5e will have a stronger "rule zero" than ever before.

There's evidence to suggest that race and class (and perhaps other things) will come with a built-in "rarity" with the idea that only "common" races and classes would be expected to be allowed by a DM without consultation, and "Rare" races and classes one would expect to clear with their DM (unless they know the DM well and she's already cleared 'em, 'natch.)

I'd expect Tieflings to list as rare, though Half-Orcs might only be uncommon. (Though in the latter case that would still give even a passive DM the needed clout to limit them if so desired.)

Seems easy to me.


----------



## TwinBahamut

I'd be really annoyed by a PHB that was limited down to the Tolkien races... I don't even like Halflings very much outside of Tolkien's works (well, except for Eberron halflings, they're fine). I don't really want a torrent of half-hearted stuff like tieflings (much rather see playable demons), either, though.

There are a ton of great things out there for fantasy races that D&D should tap into. Orcs, Merfolk, Faeries, talking animals, Centaurs, werebeasts, Minotaurs, Dryads, Demons, Angels, Dragons, Giants, and so on... I bet a lot of D&D's racial options would be more popular if they stopped diluting concepts and forcing people to play the half-human version of everything. If you're going to play something that is mostly just a re-flavored human, then you may as well just play a human.

Anyways, I think people need to wake up and realize that it is fine for D&D to move past Tolkienesque fantasy. It's 2012 already. We don't need to be slaves to a single view of fantasy that was published 75 years ago. Heck, I grew up reading Chronicles of Narnia and the Dragonriders of Pern. Where are my talking animals and rideable dragons?


----------



## avin

TwinBahamut said:


> Anyways, I think people need to wake up and realize that it is fine for D&D to move past Tolkienesque fantasy. It's 2012 already. We don't need to be slaves to a single view of fantasy that was published 75 years ago. Heck, I grew up reading Chronicles of Narnia and the Dragonriders of Pern. Where are my talking animals and rideable dragons?




Couldn't agree more.

At least there should be respect for those who want more than LOTR.


----------



## avin

On another side note, how can somebody hate Dragonborn??? 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr-buV4tYOA]Skyrim: The Dragonborn Comes - Female Cover by Malukah - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Herschel

I've always hated half-orcs and the 'spawn of evil acts" stuff but the game would not seem right without them.


----------



## Mallus

TwinBahamut said:


> Anyways, I think people need to wake up and realize that it is fine for D&D to move past Tolkienesque fantasy.



People need to realize D&D wasn't pure, Tolkienesque fantasy way back in 1979.


----------



## IanB

Mallus said:


> People need to realize D&D wasn't pure, Tolkienesque fantasy way back in 1979.




OK, so I didn't imagine those Boot Hill crossover rules right there in the core 1e DMG. 

======

On the 'I'VE SEEN THINGS IN MY DAY' front:

Come July, I'll have been playing D&D for 30 years, and if there's one thing I feel like I can say definitively, it is that nobody _ever_ plays haflings.  I've played with dozens of people, I expect I've seen close to a thousand characters all told, and I can think of exactly 3 (EDIT: 4! I just remembered another one) halflings, in all that time. The idea that they're 'popular' just baffles me.

Craploads of humans and elves and halfelves, lots of dwarves, a good number of gnomes and half-orcs, probably a dozen tieflings... but halflings? Literally almost none. So few that they stand out, really, like the one time someone played a minotaur in 1e.


----------



## Dausuul

TwinBahamut said:


> Anyways, I think people need to wake up and realize that it is fine for D&D to move past Tolkienesque fantasy.




I've been saying this for years. The thing is, D&D was never built to emulate Tolkien and epic fantasy. It was inspired by sword-and-sorcery fiction--the works of Michael Moorcock, Robert E. Howard, Jack Vance, Roger Zelazny, et al. The Tolkien races were jammed in so D&D could piggyback off the success of the Lord of the Rings, but they've never meshed very well with the rest of the D&D oeuvre.

I would really like to see _all_ nonhuman races get moved to the Uncommon level or higher in the Common/Uncommon/Rare scheme. Get rid of the expectation that every D&D game is going to have elves and dwarves.


----------



## BryonD

Dausuul said:


> I've been saying this for years. The thing is, D&D was never built to emulate Tolkien and epic fantasy. It was inspired by sword-and-sorcery fiction--the works of Michael Moorcock, Robert E. Howard, Jack Vance, Roger Zelazny, et al. The Tolkien races were jammed in so D&D could piggyback off the success of the Lord of the Rings, but they've never meshed very well with the rest of the D&D oeuvre.



Gygax pretty well mocked the idea of playing Hobbits.


----------



## TwinBahamut

Dausuul said:


> I've been saying this for years. The thing is, D&D was never built to emulate Tolkien and epic fantasy. It was inspired by sword-and-sorcery fiction--the works of Michael Moorcock, Robert E. Howard, Jack Vance, Roger Zelazny, et al. The Tolkien races were jammed in so D&D could piggyback off the success of the Lord of the Rings, but they've never meshed very well with the rest of the D&D oeuvre.
> 
> I would really like to see _all_ nonhuman races get moved to the Uncommon level or higher in the Common/Uncommon/Rare scheme. Get rid of the expectation that every D&D game is going to have elves and dwarves.



Well, to be honest, I could say just as much that D&D could be served well by moving past the likes of Moorcock, Howard, and Vance. 

I'd like to see D&D move more into the realm of fantasy that I'm familiar with from tons of videogames. I mean, look at one of the games I'm playing right now: Tactics Ogre (the PSP remake). The main story of that game is built around ethnic conflict, ethnic genocide, murky morality, conflicting imperialism and nationalism, and so on all between humans (who don't even look that different from each other). At the same time, any random group of highwaymen is likely to have two dragons, three faeries, and a handful of undead skeletons in their midst. The main list of useable species include people with wings, lizardmen, lamias, orcs (who are explicitly demonic), gryphons, giant octopi, cockatrices, cyclopses, golems, demon imps, skeletons, ghosts, angels, and dragons. And there are no elves, dwarves, or accursed halflings in sight. I absolutely love it.


----------



## Li Shenron

Tallifer said:


> Death to all racial feats!
> 
> I agree that they are the worst sort of rules bloat. I love having all the races available. But racial feats and powers mean that vast stretches of print are completely irrelevant for most players in any one group.
> 
> Class features, feats and powers can always provide some interest, because players can multi-class. But your race is fixed.
> 
> Besides which, racial feats and powers only reinforce the min-max approach to races.




Well, if you have no racial feats/powers, no racial prestige classes or equivalent, no racial weapons and so on, then races are just fluff and ability modifiers (plus some inborn abilities for some). That's certainly one way to make a race easy to ignore/remove/refluff.

But my idea of an interesting race, especially if it is civilized and allowed for PC, is that it has a culture represented also by options for character development, and it has a history represented by some role in the world/society and relationships with other races. A well-done setting (for my tastes) has PC races well integrated therefore difficult to ignore or modify, and since I wish for WotC to publish only well-done settings then I prefer they stick with more traditional races.


----------



## Sunseeker

Jeff Carlsen said:


> Then do so. This isn't telling you what should or shouldn't be in your game. It's merely setting up a series of common baselines. It's supposed to be a tool, not a shackle. Still, the language could be improved a little. Add
> 
> "For a classic game, the DM might limit PCs to common races. A more exotic setting might have different set of permitted and restricted races."
> 
> The point is to make establishing the available races and classes a standard part of any campaign, and to give tools for doing so.




I still don't like it, for one, "exotic" races tend to be more powerful, and I neither want to see popular races shackled with level adjustments nor do I want to see them gain stupidly over-powered abilities because they are "rare".

I mean lets take 3e Drow for example, a pretty good look at what Wziards does with something they consider "exotic", huge +2LA combined with crippling drawbacks(light sensitivity I'm looking at you!) and a couple stupidly over-rated abilities that should have been fairly powerful.  Really how difficult was it to just do what Pathfinder did?  Sure they still got light sensitivity, but they were really no more or less powerful than their core-race counterparts.  Handwaving one drawback if the DM wants to is much better than attempting to entirely re-balance the race to make up for stupid LA bs.

I would much rather have Wizards leave what constitutes an "exotic race" up to the DM, rather than attempt to balance "exoticness" in a mechanical manner as they've done in the past.


----------



## IanB

shidaku said:


> I mean lets take 3e Drow for example, a pretty good look at what Wziards does with something they consider "exotic", huge +2LA combined with crippling drawbacks(light sensitivity I'm looking at you!) and a couple stupidly over-rated abilities that should have been fairly powerful.




I think you're significantly underrating how good spell resistance and 4 points of extra stat boosts are. On top of all the regular elf traits, and the other miscellaneous bonuses they have.

LA is an annoying kludgy way to deal with it, but they really are just flat out better by a good amount than a regular character as written.

The Pathfinder solution really isn't a solution, they don't actually have rules for playing drow PCs at all other than "we don't really recommend this".


----------



## tuxgeo

Minigiant said:


> Don't tell 'em my secrets. (The hlfact that my home setting is New York City as a giant city-plane with each neighborhood as their own minikingdom has noting to do with this)
> 
> I just don't want to be forced to play racial stereotypes for a year as I wait for the Race book because I am only given a small batch of shoehorned, poorly supported, similar races and the modular options are low.




If you "just don't want to be forced . . . for a year as I wait for" certain races, then why not agree that the PHB could be organized into sections: PART 1 = "Core," PART 2 = "Options Module 1," PART 3 = "Options Module 2," and so forth -- all contained within the same physical book.
("Modules" don't have to mean _physically separate volumes_.) 

That way, many races could be included in the first (or even _only_) PHB, but without having all of them needing to be considered equally "core." 
That way, you wouldn't have to "wait" for the rest of the races at all; but, at the same time, the people who don't want _every race there ever was_ to be part of "core" wouldn't have to have them all be included in the core.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

IanB said:


> Come July, I'll have been playing D&D for 30 years, and if there's one thing I feel like I can say definitively, it is that nobody _ever_ plays haflings.  I've played with dozens of people, I expect I've seen close to a thousand characters all told, and I can think of exactly 3 (EDIT: 4! I just remembered another one) halflings, in all that time. The idea that they're 'popular' just baffles me.




Who knows?  I've been playing 27 years (at least twice a week), the last 18 at my own store with a few hundred people over the years and I've seen tons of halflings.  I've seen everything from Kender-types to Hobbits. I've seen whole parties of halflings.  I've seen more halflings than I've seen gnomes or even probably half-elves. (Certainly more than half-orcs or tieflings). So maybe your experience is just a fluke.

I've only played one or two myself, though, so maybe my experience is a fluke.


----------



## Incenjucar

Regarding racial feats, depending on how many feats a player even gets, I would think that three feats per race would be just fine. Add more when needed, but a three-feat investment into a concept should be plenty to fill most desires for racial depth.


----------



## Sunseeker

IanB said:


> I think you're significantly underrating how good spell resistance and 4 points of extra stat boosts are. On top of all the regular elf traits, and the other miscellaneous bonuses they have.
> 
> LA is an annoying kludgy way to deal with it, but they really are just flat out better by a good amount than a regular character as written.
> 
> The Pathfinder solution really isn't a solution, they don't actually have rules for playing drow PCs at all other than "we don't really recommend this".




I don't really need rules for how to play Drow.  Their stat-block in the PFSRD is all I really need.  My campaign will decide how drow are played.

But that's the thing too, I don't want any playable race to be better than others, I want them all to be within a certain range of variance, with most of their difference coming from racial abilities and flavor.  Like how Aasamir and Tieflings were handled in the Forgotten Realms books, slightly reduced power to get rid of the +1LA and most of their "why would I play this?" factor came from flavor.

Honestly a race is defined only minorly by it's statblock, and mostly by it's flavor, which is really all I want to see when I look it up in the PHB, a statblock and some flavor.  Beyond that it's up to the DM and the player how that race is going to work out in the given setting.


----------



## Minigiant

tuxgeo said:


> If you "just don't want to be forced . . . for a year as I wait for" certain races, then why not agree that the PHB could be organized into sections: PART 1 = "Core," PART 2 = "Options Module 1," PART 3 = "Options Module 2," and so forth -- all contained within the same physical book.
> ("Modules" don't have to mean _physically separate volumes_.)
> 
> That way, many races could be included in the first (or even _only_) PHB, but without having all of them needing to be considered equally "core."
> That way, you wouldn't have to "wait" for the rest of the races at all; but, at the same time, the people who don't want _every race there ever was_ to be part of "core" wouldn't have to have them all be included in the core.




I have no problem with that. It just that some people don't even want these "uncommon" races playable in the first core books.


----------



## TrippyHippy

In my view, there should be a mechanism within the Monster Manual that highlights and makes playable a multitude of different races, including Gnomes, Tieflings, Centaurs and whatever. In the core Players book, though, I'd just stick with the Tolkienesque Races, although I'd include the Orc and Goblin in this. I can actually see a lot if fun in playing an all Goblin/Orc party....


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone

Based on the preponderance of D&D History, I say: 1/2 orc yes; tiefling no.


----------



## variant

I honestly think all half-races should be an optional template found in the DMG. How many "vagabonds who don't fit into society" races do we actually need?


----------



## thedungeondelver

Now...half-orcs and half-elves came straight outta Tolkien, yo, so where did these other things start popping up?  I mean, what edition.  BITD (ugh...cannot believe I think of 2001/2002 as "back in the day," but there we are...10 years gone as the song says) we used to make fun of the 3e propensity for half [#IMPROBABLE_CREATURE_MIX]es, but did it roll in earlier than that, with 2e?


----------



## avin

variant said:


> I honestly think all half-races should be an optional template found in the DMG. How many "vagabonds who don't fit into society" races do we actually need?




"We?"

Well, for people who play the same tolkienesque games always "half-races" are not necessary.

But there are people playing Planescape, Spelljammer, Darksun... people who would change gnomes and halflings for Aasimar and Tieflings in a heartbeat.


----------



## Mr. Wilson

I prefer these races as "core":

Humans, Elves, Half-Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes, Orcs, and Halflings.  

I wouldn't mind seeing these races in the core book:

Tieflings, Aasimar (sp?), Warforged, Goliaths, Dragonborn, Drow, and Goblins.

I want to ditch Half-Orcs and go with regular Orcs.

If we go main race, broken down into subraces, then I like these
Humans (half-elf, half-orc, tieflings, aasimar, genasi, goliaths)
Elves (Drow, Wood, High, whatever else)
Dwarves (Hill, Mountain, Dark)
Small Folk (Kender, Gnomes, Halflings)
Savage Races (Orcs, Goblins, Minataurs, etc)
Exotic Races (The Giths, Dragonborn, Warforged)


----------



## avin

Mr. Wilson said:


> Exotic Races (The Giths, Dragonborn, Warforged)




That won't make sense in a Planar campaign. Giths are as common as elves in Sigil.


----------



## Mr. Wilson

While that is true, I would argue most games aren't planar games.

I was mainly talking from a core perspective. 

Truth be told, I don't see a way to make everyone happy.

For instance, I prefer Eberron if I'm playing in a campaign setting (and not a homebrew setting) and I'm already pretty sure things like Warforged aren't going to be included as anything but an exotic choice, even though in Eberron they would at least be considered "uncommon" at worse.


----------



## steeldragons

avin said:


> That won't make sense in a Planar campaign. Giths are as common as elves in Sigil.




This was really necessary?

This means what to the cost of tea in China? C'mon.

Is 5e defaulting to a "Planar campaign" and noone told me?


----------



## Tallifer

I explained how easy it is to refluff any race into any other already, but someone objected that such is different from trying to remove a race form a setting which is incompatible with the dungeon master's vision of the world.

I disagree: it is as easy as pie. Just take the disliked race, say Genasi in the Forgotten realms, and call them something else. Perhaps a subculture of dwarves, elves or humans which made some kind of pact with the elemental forces. Likewise for Tieflings: they can just be degenerate humans or gnomes who worship evil gods and devils, but they do need to have horns or tails. They can wear distinctive traditional clothes and have many other distinctive cultural features, but the weird racial stuff is disposable. All feats or powers for said race can be refluffed as feats specific to that particular culture and region.


----------



## hanez

Tallifer said:


> I explained how easy it is to refluff any race into any other already, but someone objected that such is different from trying to remove a race form a setting which is incompatible with the dungeon master's vision of the world.
> 
> I disagree: it is as easy as pie. Just take the disliked race, say Genasi in the Forgotten realms, and call them something else. Perhaps a subculture of dwarves, elves or humans which made some kind of pact with the elemental forces. Likewise for Tieflings: they can just be degenerate humans or gnomes who worship evil gods and devils, but they do need to have horns or tails. They can wear distinctive traditional clothes and have many other distinctive cultural features, but the weird racial stuff is disposable. All feats or powers for said race can be refluffed as feats specific to that particular culture and region.




Fluffing is fine for players who want to do it.   From a DMs perspective I like to have a core rulebook I dont have to keep ammending to run a basic game of D&D.  Dragonborn and tieflings dont make it into my basic game of D&D by a longshot.


----------



## Aeolius

I read the first 3 pages and last 3 pages of the thread. Apologies if I missed something golden in pages 4-9. 



Mattachine said:


> My current campaign is humans only, even though some other races exist. As a DM, writing the game world and such, I am entitled to as much fun as everyone else.



   Absolutely! My current campaign is set beneath the surface of the sea. As you might expect, core races are not permitted. PCs must have a natural swim speed and the ability to breathe underwater without the use of magic. Thus I am a proponent of the "Savage Species" route - any intelligent being should be a playable option (Apologies to Gurgalurk, my gray ooze illusionist). 



curupira said:


> Fine, but why not full-blown orcs instead of half-orcs? That "serious backstory implied" is just stupid. With neutral orc tribes in the monster manual, it would be not that hard to justify.



   You know, I like this idea. In 1e, half-orcs could be of human, goblin, or hobgoblin stock. So use orc as the playable base and expand half-orcs in the MM to include variable parentage.

   Human, elf, orc, halfling, and dwarf seem like a varied choice for a start. Yes, I like gnomes as much as the next person, but I think the initial choices should be simplified for new players. Half-elves, half-orcs, and gnomes, along with most intelligent creatures in the MM, should be presented with playability in mind. After all, sea elves, merfolk, and locathah are the "core races" in my undersea game.


----------



## avin

steeldragons said:


> This was really necessary?
> 
> This means what to the cost of tea in China? C'mon.
> 
> Is 5e defaulting to a "Planar campaign" and noone told me?




I don't play "Tolkien", I don't play Eberron, I don't play Forgotten Realms, I don't play Greyhawk and I don't play POL. There's nothing wrong playing these worlds, they're just not my cup of tea...

I do play homebrews, Dark Sun and Planescape.

"Default campaign" is something I would remove from DDN so, yes, this was really necessary. Why one should bow to what other people claim "common"? 

I still have to see with my own eyes why a Halfling is more popular than a Dragonborn or a Tiefling...


----------



## MoonSong

Aeolius said:


> I read the first 3 pages and last 3 pages of the thread. Apologies if I missed something golden in pages 4-9.
> 
> 
> Absolutely! My current campaign is set beneath the surface of the sea. As you might expect, core races are not permitted. PCs must have a natural swim speed and the ability to breathe underwater without the use of magic. Thus I am a proponent of the "Savage Species" route - any intelligent being should be a playable option (Apologies to Gurgalurk, my gray ooze illusionist).
> 
> 
> You know, I like this idea. In 1e, half-orcs could be of human, goblin, or hobgoblin stock. So use orc as the playable base and expand half-orcs in the MM to include variable parentage.
> 
> Human, elf, orc, halfling, and dwarf seem like a varied choice for a start. Yes, I like gnomes as much as the next person, but I think the initial choices should be simplified for new players. Half-elves, half-orcs, and gnomes, along with most intelligent creatures in the MM, should be presented with playability in mind. After all, sea elves, merfolk, and locathah are the "core races" in my undersea game.





Just five races is enough, for a starting box not for core, core isn't "just for noobs", neither the most minimal options for the game, nor what must be enoforced on every table. Core is about the minimal rules and elements needed to fully play the game and all of the options that can be taken for granted. Everything outside the core remains a luxury (and yes, even a homebrew setting is a luxury, the only difference is you pay for it with time and effort instead of money). 

Even inside core, every character option not in the PHB is also a luxury for players. As such even when I think core should include some way to use all or most inteligent creatures as playable races, that shouldn't force the most liked and inconic races outside the PHB. Having twelve races doesn't confuse new players, what confuses them is having thousands of options suddenly dumped into them.  Having a too few races in the PHB, punishes too many players -who used to take their beloved tieflings, gnomes, etc, for granted and suddenly find them become a luxury- for little benefit. 

The following has no specific dedicatory, really.
The most civil way for a DM/GM to introduce players to a homebrew world is say "This is the world it works this way, the playable races and available classes are these, these other stuff is off-limits, if you really want to play with that and have though of some way to make it work without disrupting the world or monopolizing gameplay, I'm open to suggestions". No rulebook in the world will magically solve the interpersonal and compatibility issues between a GM and her players.

And "I don't want x race on my homebrew, ergo it shouldn't be in the core"  is a bad argument, every race has it's lovers and it's detractors, as such each one of them is bound to be left out of a Homebrew setting at some point, we may as well get no races in the PHB.


----------



## avin

KaiiLurker said:


> And "I don't want x race on my homebrew, ergo it shouldn't be in the core"  is a bad argument, every race has it's lovers and it's detractors, as such each one of them is bound to be left out of a Homebrew setting at some point, we may as well get no races in the PHB.




This. People should not assume everybody plays a human/elf/dwarf/hobbit game... we should respect each other preferences instead of march against some race, like its not necessary.

RPG is a game of imagination and I want to be free to choose what races will exist on my X world, on Y campaign... more is better.


----------



## Sunseeker

avin said:


> This. People should not assume everybody plays a human/elf/dwarf/hobbit game... we should respect each other preferences instead of march against some race, like its not necessary.
> 
> RPG is a game of imagination and I want to be free to choose what races will exist on my X world, on Y campaign... more is better.




Exactly, I don't see why people can't grasp this.


----------



## tuxgeo

Tallifer said:


> The Red Starter Box should be very simple with four races and four classes, no feats, no powers, no skills, no themes, no exotic weapons. This will be great for new players and pleasing to the Old School.
> 
> But the (almost simultaneously published) Advanced Players' Handbook should offer a full array of choices. This will be good for experienced players who like options, some familiar stuff and a great mixture of everything.




That would be a good way for WotC to go. 

(Sorry, cannot give more XP to Tallifer at this time.)


----------



## El Mahdi

I would like to see Tiefling and Half-Orc in the D&D Next PHB.  
At least as long as the Tieflings are the 3E version and not the 4E version.  I like both.  I think it's quite easy to simply exclude them from a campaign if they are inappropriate to it.  And shouldn't be excluded from the PHB just because some DM's/Players/fans don't like them.  If you don't like them, then simply don't use them.

But, I do feel that it is 100% the DM's perogative, and not the players, to not allow certain races in their campaigns...whatever their reasons are.  The DM determines the world and environment.  Period.  IMO, that is not open for debate.  If you absolutely cannot play in a campaign because a racial choice you so had your heart set on isn't available, then it's probably a good time to find another hobby...


----------



## variant

avin said:


> This. People should not assume everybody plays a human/elf/dwarf/hobbit game... we should respect each other preferences instead of march against some race, like its not necessary.
> 
> RPG is a game of imagination and I want to be free to choose what races will exist on my X world, on Y campaign... more is better.




No one is assuming anything. Of course some people want to play weird and strange things. That is what expansion books are for.


----------



## Sunseeker

variant said:


> No one is assuming anything. Of course some people want to play weird and strange things. That is what expansion books are for.




Yes, there are two primary assumptions in this thread.

1: That weirder races are less played.
2: That less played races are less important.

The ENTIRE argument in favor throughout this thread is basically this:

"I don't like/play tieflings, since my personal experience is representative of the game as a whole, I don't think tieflings should be included in Core."

And the attitude that comes along with it is: "oh, you'll get the races you like later, or whatever."

Basically, people don't care as long as they get their cookie, and whats worse is that they want their cookie by denying someone else theirs.  The argument is tantamount to that people who don't play humans/elves/dwarves/halflings are playing the game wrong.  And that's not a very well liked argument now is it?


----------



## Belphanior

There are two problems with OP's sentiment.

1. There is no reason why one's own preference for races should dictate what the game's core rules should be. Even if the Tolkien-races are the most core races of D&D, that only means they should be included. But just because some things must be included does not mean that all other things should be excluded. The half-orcs, gnomes, and tieflings have enough tradition behind them to warrant inclusion in core D&D.

2. Moving on from the nebulous "core D&D" and towards the specific D&D in question, D&DN/5e, explicitly stated to be a unifying edition that will support the same kind of experiences you may have had with any other edition... why would they possibly put in the _least_ amount of races ever? This contradicts the design goal.



Conclusion:

OP's opinion can be ignored because it's practically self-evident that the designers of the next edition don't share it.


----------



## variant

shidaku said:


> Yes, there are two primary assumptions in this thread.
> 
> 1: That weirder races are less played.
> 2: That less played races are less important.
> 
> The ENTIRE argument in favor throughout this thread is basically this:
> 
> "I don't like/play tieflings, since my personal experience is representative of the game as a whole, I don't think tieflings should be included in Core."
> 
> And the attitude that comes along with it is: "oh, you'll get the races you like later, or whatever."
> 
> Basically, people don't care as long as they get their cookie, and whats worse is that they want their cookie by denying someone else theirs.  The argument is tantamount to that people who don't play humans/elves/dwarves/halflings are playing the game wrong.  And that's not a very well liked argument now is it?




There can be literally thousands of races. Should they all be included in Core?


----------



## Invisible Stalker

Tallifer said:


> The Red Starter Box should be very simple with four races and four classes, no feats, no powers, no skills, no themes, no exotic weapons. This will be great for new players and pleasing to the Old School.
> 
> But the (almost simultaneously published) Advanced Players' Handbook should offer a full array of choices. This will be good for experienced players who like options, some familiar stuff and a great mixture of everything.




That's my recommendation as well. The Classic Four for the box, 10-12 (maybe more) in the PHB.

 If WOTC wants to be considerate of 4E players they are going to have to include as many 4E classes and races as possible right off the bat. 

The gnome and half-orc might be left out in favor of new 5E playable races entitled sparkling vampire and shirtless werewolf.


----------



## Sunseeker

variant said:


> There can be literally thousands of races. Should they all be included in Core?




No.  But there should certainly be more than 4 or 5 of them.


----------



## Minigiant

variant said:


> No one is assuming anything. Of course some people want to play weird and strange things. That is what expansion books are for.




Is it fair that I have to wait 6 months to play something other than a human, elf, dwarf, or halfing?


Because a Race book would come out no earlier than 6 months after the release.


----------



## Aeolius

Minigiant said:


> Is it fair that I have to wait 6 months to play something other than a human, elf, dwarf, or halfing?




Not if the 5e MM was written in such a way as to make intelligent races (including gnomes and half-races), certain undead, awakened animals, and the like as playable options.


----------



## Sunseeker

Aeolius said:


> Not if the 5e MM was written in such a way as to make intelligent races (including gnomes and half-races), certain undead, awakened animals, and the like as playable options.




Well sure, if there's a stat-block for PCs, assuming that the MM includes several races that could be considered playable(such as drow, tieflings, gnomes, ect...).

If it doesn't it will take forever to get new races.


----------



## Tallifer

Invisible Stalker said:


> That's my recommendation as well. The Classic Four for the box, 10-12 (maybe more) in the PHB.
> 
> If WOTC wants to be considerate of 4E players they are going to have to include as many 4E classes and races as possible right off the bat.




I had a thought today also about how an extremely simple Old School/Starter Box is necessary for playing D&D with little children. No need to overwhelm kids' minds with too many options.

Mind you, as soon as they learn the basics, they will quickly become interesting in all the cool toys. They certainly do not shy away from large and varied collections of Pokemon or Yugi-oh crads.


----------



## Elf Witch

I didn't read this entire thread but I am always stunned when people say things like I don't like this in my game so it should be banned.

I don't like the idea of warforged, tiefling or dragonborn being core races. They are just to exotic and campaign specific especially warforged.

But I realize that a lot of people like them so they will most likely be in the PHB. 

I am okay with that because when I DM I have the freedom to say no to those races if they don't fit the campaign I want to run.

Also why do people get in arguments based on what is popular when it is based on anecdotal evidence? Just because in your experience people prefer one thing does not mean that in other areas something else is not more popular.

Halflings seem to be very popular in the groups I play with. But I certainly don't take that has a hard fact that they are popular everywhere else.


----------



## hanez

Elf Witch said:


> I didn't read this entire thread but I am always stunned when people say things like I don't like this in my game so it should be banned.
> 
> I don't like the idea of warforged, tiefling or dragonborn being core races. They are just to exotic and campaign specific especially warforged.
> 
> But I realize that a lot of people like them so they will most likely be in the PHB.
> 
> I am okay with that because when I DM I have the freedom to say no to those races if they don't fit the campaign I want to run.
> 
> Also why do people get in arguments based on what is popular when it is based on anecdotal evidence? Just because in your experience people prefer one thing does not mean that in other areas something else is not more popular.
> 
> Halflings seem to be very popular in the groups I play with. But I certainly don't take that has a hard fact that they are popular everywhere else.




I like tieflings, and warforged, but I don't thinkthey should be in the core.  Not because I dont like them but because D&D is a tolkienesque fantasy style game.  This edition shouldnt be about moving away from the D&D brand, it should be about embracing it.  Make a kick but traditional fantasy style game, and let mods expand it.


----------



## Elf Witch

hanez said:


> I like tieflings, and warforged, but I don't thinkthey should be in the core.  Not because I dont like them but because D&D is a tolkienesque fantasy style game.  This edition shouldnt be about moving away from the D&D brand, it should be about embracing it.  Make a kick but traditional fantasy style game, and let mods expand it.




I don't think it is just a Tolkien inspired game though. The magic system is not from Tolkein it is from Jack Vance the rogue is from Falfred and the Gray Mouser books. 

It borrowed heavily from a lot of fantasy. And I think going back to only pleasing first and second edition fans is a mistake. There is room for things from every edition.


----------



## SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS

D&D needs more variety, even skyrim have lizard and feline races, and it is a very tradicional computer RPG. I have 32 years and my d&d more influenced by videogames than Tolkien and I know that is like this for many people.


----------



## Ant

I'd much prefer the classic four races to be in PHB1 (and maybe even the half-orc and gnome), not because I have a problem with saying no to players but because this sets a precedent on the "feel" of the core 5e books.

I like my traditional Tolkien-esque fantasy and I like the feel of those core races.  Start throwing teiflings into the core and that means that, if there's a core campiagn world, suddenly there needs to be a reason for half-demons walking around and being generally accepted.

By all means have as many weird and crazy half-planar races as you like in the supplements.  Even a stick-in-the-mud like me enjoys a splash of change every so often.

Edit:


SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS said:


> ... even skyrim have lizard and feline races



And the game is no better because of it.


----------



## SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS

Ant said:


> And the game is no better because of it.




The game would be better without them? They are interesting races, the game is better with them, even if only they give more mechanical option to build a character.


----------



## Sunseeker

hanez said:


> I like tieflings, and warforged, but I don't thinkthey should be in the core.  Not because I dont like them but because D&D is a tolkienesque fantasy style game.  This edition shouldnt be about moving away from the D&D brand, it should be about embracing it.  Make a kick but traditional fantasy style game, and let mods expand it.





LOTR already has an MMO and a TTRPG.  Having D&D imitate it with limited racial options will not improve D&D, it'll just make people go: Why should I play that when _this_ already does it all?


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun

Aeolius said:


> Not if the 5e MM was written in such a way as to make intelligent races (including gnomes and half-races), certain undead, awakened animals, and the like as playable options.



 So because some people can't fathom the idea of more options being in the PHB, where player stuff goes, the designers are supposed to use up space in the monster book, where monsters go, for player stuff?  How is this any better, AT ALL?

If anything, it increases confusion on where to find things, and wastes space in books with options that have no business being in there.

Why don't they start putting monsters in the PHB, magic items in the monster book, and make you buy a separate accessory for combat options at that?  Player options go in the PHB and its derivatives, monsters go in the MM and its derivatives.  And options that belong in the first PHB, such as half-elves, half-orcs, gnomes, and many other things shouldn't have to go in a separate product because a small minority of players/DMs want to dictate what other people use in their games.


----------



## Stormonu

My interest in a D&D next game would be lessened for each former PHB race (any edition) that is not in the main book (well, maybe I won't miss the Shardmind, but...).

My first AD&D character was a half-orc assassin, of whom I'm quite fond.  I've been playing with a draconic race in my own homebrew since at least '86.  Minotaurs have been available ever since they appeared in the Complete Humanoid in 2E. I picked up vampires as a playable race after the _Grim Harvest_ Ravenloft modules in 2E.  While I was late to the party to pick up Tiefling, Aasimar and Deva, I'd like to see them around as options.  Heck, my homebrew has a whole line of (fey) animals-as-humanoids races that I picked up from the cartoon Flash Gordon days; cat-humans, dog-humans and other such anthropomorphic races have been absent from the PHB for a long time despite their reoccurring appearance in fantasy.

I think that in the _PHB_ they should include as many races as they can and put in a big sidebar disclaimer, right at the beginning of the race section in the *PHB* - "Check with your DM as he may make some of the races listed herein rarer or non-existent in a particular setting.  As always, _the final decision of playable races rests with the DM."_


----------



## Khaalis

variant said:


> No one is assuming anything. Of course some people want to play weird and strange things. That is what expansion books are for.




I think one of the core problems with this entire discussion is summed up in this statement. What 1 persons considered "weird and strange" is something a common staple to another.  When you come right down to it.... ANYTHING in fantasy is weird and strange. That's kind of the point.  When it comes down to it, half-orcs and tieflings have become icon D&D races, whether some people like them or not.


----------



## SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS

Khaalis said:


> I think one of the core problems with this entire discussion is summed up in this statement. What 1 persons considered "weird and strange" is something a common staple to another.  When you come right down to it.... ANYTHING in fantasy is weird and strange. That's kind of the point.  When it comes down to it, half-orcs and tieflings have become icon D&D races, whether some people like them or not.




And the PHB races should be simple, half a page or something like this, the fluff information shoul be in the settings book.


----------



## TwinBahamut

Khaalis said:


> I think one of the core problems with this entire discussion is summed up in this statement. What 1 persons considered "weird and strange" is something a common staple to another.  When you come right down to it.... ANYTHING in fantasy is weird and strange. That's kind of the point.  When it comes down to it, half-orcs and tieflings have become icon D&D races, whether some people like them or not.



Yeah, tieflings or half-orcs don't even come close to my bar for weird or strange. Once you encounter a race of creatures which are best described as "the dead souls of human sinners stuffed into penguin suits that say 'd00d' all the time and are forced to serve as cheap labor for lazy demons," then there is no turning back.


----------



## Kynn

New rule:

*Only races I personally like should be allowed into the PHB, everything else is BANNED.*

I think that's pretty reasonable. Don't you?


----------



## Libramarian

Minigiant said:


> Don't tell 'em my secrets. (The hlfact that my home setting is New York City as a giant city-plane with each neighborhood as their own minikingdom has noting to do with this)
> 
> I just don't want to be forced to play racial stereotypes for a year as I wait for the Race book because I am only given a small batch of shoehorned, poorly supported, similar races and the modular options are low.




That's pretty rad. But I think the best solution would be a race generation system in the core book. Which is right out of OD&D. Although calling it a system there would be generous...

"Other Character Types: There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play virtually anything, provided they begin relatively weak and work up to the top, i.e. a player wishing to be a Dragon would have to begin as let us say, a "young" one and progress upwards in the usual manner, steps being predetermined by the campaign referee."


----------



## Libramarian

Elf Witch said:


> I don't think it is just a Tolkien inspired game though. The magic system is not from Tolkein it is from Jack Vance the rogue is from Falfred and the Gray Mouser books.
> 
> It borrowed heavily from a lot of fantasy. And I think going back to only pleasing first and second edition fans is a mistake. There is room for things from every edition.




The races are from Tolkien though.


----------



## Elf Witch

Libramarian said:


> The races are from Tolkien though.




Yes they are but as I said earlier it is not pure Tolkien. There is no way the wizard class is anything like Gandalf. Something that a lot of gamers who don't like the older magic systems bring up over and over again. Nor is the cleric, druid, barbarian, rogue anything like LOTR.

Like I said it is a mish mash. I think it is great to add things in from older editions to get people like me who didn't go to 4e to want to play 5e but there are a lot of young people who got into gaming from other avenues of fantasy and there gaming taste need to be filled as well if want this game to going.


----------



## steeldragons

Ok...how 'bout this...

I, personally, have advocated in numerous of these 5e threads, specifically about Race, that the starter box (which I am assuming will cover, about, levels 1-5, maybe 1-10) and the near-simultaneously released complete PHB (which I am assuming will cover the "whole pre-epic" game, so say levels 1-20) include all of the following as such...

"Classic" Game option: the basic 4, Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling
"Legacy" Game option: Dragonborn, Gnome, Half-Elf, Half-Orc, and Tiefling.
Additional option/add-ons: whatever's left that people want to see...another 4, I suppose.

You [the DM!] get to pick and choose what races are goign to be present in your world...or the section of your world the PCs are starting in...and go from there.

BUT...the baffling length and statements of this thread are making me think now...

WHAT IF... 

...both the starter box and the PHB do the Races as follows...

RACE TYPE
NAME
Size
+X to one ability score
Movement Rate Adjustment, if necessary
+Y resistance to or save from Z
3 Special Abilities (with a list -I'd say not more than 1 page, maybe more- of a number of _sample_ special racial abilities for DMs and/or Players to choose from _*and/or*_ [note the_ "and"_ and the _"or"_] use as guidelines to generate their own!)

SO, you'd have sample "templates" I suppose you'd call them for:

"Brute" Race (for the Dragonborn, Minotaurs, Half-giants/ogres, Goliaths, prolly Warforged, etc...whatever you want)
Large
+2 to Strength.
Movement Rate: *whatever 1 or 2 categories above humans.
+1 to saves vs., say, Fire (for a Dragonborn) or "Push"/forced movement effects for a goliath or whatever. But a +1 to something.
[Sample] Special Abilities:
+2 to damage egardless of strength with a (if they include such mechanics) save or "Push"/"Stun"/etc. lingering effect.
Carrying twice normal encumbrance regardless of strength.
Able to weild Two-handed weapons with One hand (thus able to utilize shields to enhance AC).

"Human" Race (humans, half-elves, half-orcs, FULL orcs -maybee with an extra +1 to str., hobgoblins, etc..)
blah 
blah
blah

"Elf" Race (also applicable might be Eladrin, Tieflings or Aasimar, etc.)
_[again, just as a sample/example. Please don't quote me and start posting back: "But elves should get +2 blah blah" or "Tieflings should be in the Human block yada yada." I honestly don't care how you categorize them. That's not the point! This is an exammmmpull.]_
Size: 5-6 feet tall.
+1 to Dex.
Movement: +1 category faster if not heavily encumbered.
+2 to saves against charms/enchantment magic
Special Abilities
Low-light vision
Move Silently
Arcane Afinity (however that's defined. I'm not writing out a whole page of sample abilities in this thread. 

Then have a:
"Sturdy" Race block (usable for say 4-5 feet tall, with or without the stocky and you could get your satyrs, your dwarves -all sorts- a tall gnome if you wanted, an "Elfquest/Wolfrider" build elf, "little people" humans, whatever.)

and a "Small Races" block for those under 4 feet: for those who want gnomes, halflings, sprites if you like, goblins, kobolds, a "Keebler/Santa's Helper" elf build, etc.)

And that's it. Culture and those traits/abilities form them are for the DM to decide and form for their game.

There you go.

NO list of available races...only what you/your DM choose(s) to make yourself.

Will that make everyone happy?

Or do the numbers and letters need to spell out every +/-, special ability, resistance, weapon/spell proficiency, appearance and culture for you?

Just typin' out loud here with my first coffee, so maybe its been done or thought of or dismissed already...but c'mon, it's my first cup of coffee.

Happy Sunday all.
--Steel Dragons


----------



## trancejeremy

Libramarian said:


> The races are from Tolkien though.




Half - elves & dwarves are quite common in folklore, and I don't think Tolkien had gnomes

He does get credit for popularizing orcs and inventing Hobbits, and probably the concept of half-orc and half-elf (as opposed to simply a changeling.)

But the game wasn't meant to simulate anything but what people wanted to play. Things were taken from various novels (or films or even TV shows) simply because they seemed like a fun thing to add or play.

That part should stay in the game, it should in part a reflection of popular fantasy, but at the same time, it shouldn't drive the game's mechanics. Unfortunately a lot of the more extreme races can break the system.

That's not new - the half-ogre probably started it...


----------



## avin

variant said:


> No one is assuming anything. Of course some people want to play weird and strange things. That is what expansion books are for.




Weird is Halflings and Gnomes.

Want a real core? Human, Dwarf and Elf.

Halflings and Gnomes are just as bizarre as Githtankis, Dragonborns and Warforgeds.


----------



## avin

Elf Witch said:


> Also why do people get in arguments based on what is popular when it is based on anecdotal evidence? Just because in your experience people prefer one thing does not mean that in other areas something else is not more popular.




I've clearly stated that my argument is based on what I've seen, therefore, I may be wrong.

But until I see players happily joining as Halflings there's no way I believe is that popular. It's anecdotal, so people are free to ignore my comment 



hanez said:


> I like tieflings, and warforged, but I don't thinkthey should be in the core.  Not because I dont like them but because D&D is a tolkienesque fantasy style game.  This edition shouldnt be about moving away from the D&D brand, it should be about embracing it.  Make a kick but traditional fantasy style game, and let mods expand it.




Tolkien didn't created Humans, Elves, Dwarves or Gnomes. As far as we know, Vance and other guys were a more potent influence. 



SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS said:


> D&D needs more variety, even skyrim have lizard and feline races, and it is a very tradicional computer RPG. I have 32 years and my d&d more influenced by videogames than Tolkien and I know that is like this for many people.




Exactly. Wotc can't alienate this part of their costumers, videogame players, used to a lot of races, in the name of people who dislike it. 
(And Bethesda have been using weird races all along Elder Scrolls)



Ant said:


> I'd much prefer the classic four races to be in PHB1 (and maybe even the half-orc and gnome), not because I have a problem with saying no to players but because this sets a precedent on the "feel" of the core 5e books.
> 
> I like my traditional Tolkien-esque fantasy and I like the feel of those core races.  Start throwing teiflings into the core and that means that, if there's a core campiagn world, suddenly there needs to be a reason for half-demons walking around and being generally accepted.




So, more races on core will spoil your fun? That doesn't seem to make sense at all... a DM is free to decide what he will put on his homebrew.



Khaalis said:


> I think one of the core problems with this entire discussion is summed up in this statement. What 1 persons considered "weird and strange" is something a common staple to another.  When you come right down to it.... ANYTHING in fantasy is weird and strange. That's kind of the point.  When it comes down to it, half-orcs and tieflings have become icon D&D races, whether some people like them or not.




It's a fantasy game... not a tolkienesque fantasy game.



Libramarian said:


> The races are from Tolkien though.




Not humans, not dwarves, not elves, not gnomes... etc. 
Just halflings/hobbits.


----------



## NN

Half orcs can be core. Theyre a bog standard fantasy trope.

Tieflings arent. They belong in a "Supplement if you want a setting with lots of interplanar interaction "

Half dragons belong in a "Supplement: Dragon*******s - So, you want rampant horny dragon interspecies sex ."


----------



## harlokin

NN said:


> Half orcs can be core. Theyre a bog standard fantasy trope.
> 
> Tieflings arent. They belong in a "Supplement if you want a setting with lots of interplanar interaction "
> 
> Half dragons belong in a "Supplement: Dragon*******s - So, you want rampant horny dragon interspecies sex ."




Why? Just cos you said so?


----------



## avin

NN said:


> Half orcs can be core. Theyre a bog standard fantasy trope.
> 
> Tieflings arent. They belong in a "Supplement if you want a setting with lots of interplanar interaction "
> 
> Half dragons belong in a "Supplement: Dragon*******s - So, you want rampant horny dragon interspecies sex ."




...and I was under impression DDN was about to put everybody at the same page... but it seems people will keep their mentalithy that only "X" races is good, "give me what I want, as I don't care how others play"...


----------



## Ant

I had the impression this thread was about stating our preferences on what races we'd like to see in the PHB.  Getting upset because people don't want your furry/half-flumph/boobasaur or whatever is just as silly as saying you're not buying 5ed because one of the races is a furry/half-flumph/boobasaur.

As stated previously, my preference is seeing human, elf, dwarf and halfing in the core.  I'd much prefer not seeing overly exotic races (basically anthropomorphic animals or planar beings) in the core because this sets a precedent for trying to explain these races in the core world (if there is one).

And if the core world is, oh say Greyhawk and suddenly there are teiflings and half-dragons and half-flumphs wandering (or errr ... floating) around then I'll be rather put out.

And no-one wants that ...


----------



## Bedrockgames

harlokin said:


> Why? Just cos you said so?




I think it is fair to say that tieflings aren't standard fantasy. Pick up most fantasy novels and you pretty consistently run into variants on dwarves, elves, orcs, halfings, and gnomes. Those are the standard races in addition to human. In video games you see a lot more beastial races and stuff, but I say keep the standard traditional races (after all 4e is the only edition that introduces anything outside these core races in the phb) in the PHB and put the newer 4E races in a supplement. 

Personally tieflings being in the PHB wont deter me from buying the books (because I will just ignore them along with dragonborne), but my guess is a lot of people are going to buy or not buy if certain races are included or excluded.


----------



## Somebloke

Bedrockgames said:


> I think it is fair to say that tieflings aren't standard fantasy. Pick up most fantasy novels and you pretty consistently run into variants on dwarves, elves, orcs, halfings, and gnomes. Those are the standard races in addition to human. In video games you see a lot more beastial races and stuff, but I say keep the standard traditional races (after all 4e is the only edition that introduces anything outside these core races in the phb) in the PHB and put the newer 4E races in a supplement.
> 
> Personally tieflings being in the PHB wont deter me from buying the books (because I will just ignore them along with dragonborne), but my guess is a lot of people are going to buy or not buy if certain races are included or excluded.




You aren't reading enough Fantasy novels. Or at least, not the ones I read.  

And the idea of a bloodline cursed/blessed by outside powers is hardly a new concept.  Nor the idea of a tough but dumb bruiser race. Also, as others pointed out, 'new' media enthusiasts make up a significant proportion of the target audience for DnD- it would be silly not to give them options as well in the core books.

My own personal dream? Since I love to run human- only campaigns, I would like to see some way to distinguish human characters from different backgrounds or regions like they did with Conan or Rokugan d20. but somehow I don't think it will make it in to Core.


----------



## Aeolius

Bedrockgames said:


> Personally tieflings being in the PHB wont deter me from buying the books (because I will just ignore them along with dragonborne), but my guess is a lot of people are going to buy or not buy if certain races are included or excluded.




Agreed. Everyone has favorite races. When I suggested that the PH have human, elf, dwarf, halfling, and orc, I got flack from those who like half-elves and the like. With the "complexity dials" in mind, I was simply looking at things from a matter of simplicity. Playing a half-elf, gnome, or half-orc from the MM should be as simple as playing a sea elf or ghoul.

For that matter, in 30+ years of gaming, I have only played a dwarf PC once, in a one-shot. That's not to say I would not allow their aquatic cousins in my current campaign. Heck, I'd allow a player to choose a typical dwarf if they so chose... for as long as the character could hold their breath.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Somebloke said:


> You aren't reading enough Fantasy novels. Or at least, not the ones I read.
> 
> And the idea of a bloodline cursed/blessed by outside powers is hardly a new concept.  Nor the idea of a tough but dumb bruiser race. Also, as others pointed out, 'new' media enthusiasts make up a significant proportion of the target audience for DnD- it would be silly not to give them options as well in the core books.




We may be reading different books. But keep in mind there is a difference bewteen being standard and not being a new concept. These sorts of things do exist in fantasy novels, but they arent as standard as elves, gnomes, dwarves and halflings (nor are they as standard in your average fantasy campaign).

On the video game enthusiast front, it seems catering to them didn't attract many, and actually drove away many regular table top players. So while winning over this crowd should be important I think it should be done on D&D's terms rather than bending D&D to appeal to them. 



> My own personal dream? Since I love to run human- only campaigns, I would like to see some way to distinguish human characters from different backgrounds or regions like they did with Conan or Rokugan d20. but somehow I don't think it will make it in to Core.




i like human only games as well. My guess is you are correct here. Back in the 90s TSR did offer mechanical distinctions for humans of different backgrounds in some settings (i think they did it for birthright however). The problem is because these were mostly analogues to real people and ethnicities it was difficult not to offend people


----------



## Belphanior

Bedrockgames said:


> I think it is fair to say that tieflings aren't standard fantasy. Pick up most fantasy novels and you pretty consistently run into variants on dwarves, elves, orcs, halfings, and gnomes.




That is not my experience. Most fantasy novels are human-only, at least insofar as PC-material is concerned. (D&D novels are the most notable exception but that's obviously a chicken-or-egg thing.)

But D&D is not "most fantasy novels". It's beholders, gelatinous cubes, and dragons that are color-coded for our convenience. It's Norse, Greek, and Egyptian myth all blended together along with German, Arabic, and Celtic folklore. And let's not forget all the Biblical references in the cleric's spell list. Or the Lovecraftian elements of Aboleths and Illithid.

On top of that it's a "medieval Europe" that is neither medieval nor European, where polytheism is objective truth, Frankenstein's monster and the Jewish Golem walk side by side in the lab of a Vancian wizard, and Modrons patrol the dimensions.

But the PCs aren't allowed to be cat-people or reptiles or anything. Because that would make it _weird_.


----------



## Khaalis

NN said:


> Half dragons belong in a "Supplement: Dragon*******s - So, you want rampant horny dragon interspecies sex ."



Why? Because you have a narrow imagination and can only see them this way? In my world dragons are a ruling species. They lay a large clutches of eggs. However, only a very small percentage of the eggs bear a true dragon birth. Usually instead they create the following (playable) species (in order of commonality): Kobolds, Dragonborn, Drakes.

However, the world does also have those with Draconic Heritage. How? Well some dragons are gifted with the ability to take humanoid form, and as with so many real-world examples, when one race "rules" over another, conception does happen. However, those produced via this method are almost as, if not more, uncommon than the birth of true dragons.

So there is an example for you. Not every humanoid-dragon has to be conceived via interspecies furry mating.


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun

Bedrockgames said:


> I think it is fair to say that tieflings aren't standard fantasy.



 Well, then it is a good thing nobody talking about the Tired Old Standard Fantasy RPG (TM).  We are talking about D&D here, where Tieflings ARE something commonly seen.  Where half-orcs ARE commonly seen.  Nobody gives a flying fairy's finger about what people's fantasy reading lists.


----------



## Khaalis

Somebloke said:


> My own personal dream? Since I love to run human- only campaigns, I would like to see some way to distinguish human characters from different backgrounds or regions like they did with Conan or Rokugan d20. but somehow I don't think it will make it in to Core.




You my friend, need to go check out Fantasy Craft. The only "racial ability" you get just from being human is: medium size and base speed 30. Everything else is based on your human "Talent". Since humans are so diverse, the Talent represents the character's individual heritage, outlook, personality, background, etc.  *Example Talents:* Adaptable, Agile, Charismatic, Crusading, Grizzled, Industrious, Methodical, Ruthless, Savy, Stern, Svelte, Unpredictable, etc.

On top of this you also have a Specialty, which better defines your character's background combined as a focus for their chosen class training. *Example Specialties:* Acrobat, Adventurer, Archer, Aristocrat, Artisan, Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Criminal, Druid, Fencer, Gladiator, Lord, Merchant, etc.

Its really one of the best "Origin" systems I've seen, Especially for Humans. It is very easy to play an all human campaign. Its even incredibly easy to say run an all Human Rogue game and have no 2 characters alike.


----------



## Bedrockgames

CasvalRemDeikun said:


> Well, then it is a good thing nobody talking about the Tired Old Standard Fantasy RPG (TM).  We are talking about D&D here, where Tieflings ARE something commonly seen.  Where half-orcs ARE commonly seen.  Nobody gives a flying fairy's finger about what people's fantasy reading lists.




I agree, D&D isn't simply about what is popular in current fantasy novels. But I would argue teiflings are not widely ambraced as a standard D&D race by most players. While they have been embraced somewhAt by the 4e crowd and some 3e fans, I think most people want the D&D standard races from the previous editions (granted 2E took out half orcs). Like I said, it isn't a deal breaker if they are in there, but i really would like the core character options to be what I generally expected in the first three editions.


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun

Bedrockgames said:


> I agree, D&D isn't simply about what is popular in current fantasy novels. But I would argue teiflings are not widely ambraced as a standard D&D race by most players. While they have been embraced somewhAt by the 4e crowd and some 3e fans, I think most people want the D&D standard races from the previous editions (granted 2E took out half orcs). Like I said, it isn't a deal breaker if they are in there, but i really would like the core character options to be what I generally expected in the first three editions.



 Tieflings were kind of a big thing in 2E as well, but that isn't the point.  I disagree that they should focus on what was acceptable for the previous three editions and ignore the latest one.  That would be a colossal mistake.  They are better served paying attention to ALL of their source material.  Like you said, it wouldn't be a deal breaker for most people to have races they don't use be in the books.  The MM is likely to have Drow in it, a monster I have NEVER used in my games, but that is my problem, so I just don't use them.


----------



## avin

Bedrockgames said:


> I agree, D&D isn't simply about what is popular in current fantasy novels. But I would argue teiflings are not widely ambraced as a standard D&D race by most players. While they have been embraced somewhAt by the 4e crowd and some 3e fans, I think most people want the D&D standard races from the previous editions (granted 2E took out half orcs). Like I said, it isn't a deal breaker if they are in there, but i really would like the core character options to be what I generally expected in the first three editions.




What? Tieflings was a major presence on Planescape, not just 3E and 4E fans like them. Most Tiefling fans come from AD&D2E, not 4E. This is heresy! 

And, as somebody else suggested, a vast majority of fantasy books shows humans only as protagonists... not elves, not hobbits, not dwarves.

More and more I'm forced to believe there are a lot of Tolkien fans among D&D assuming the only game allowedy is tolkienesque fantasy... outside that is "badwrongfun".

It's not.

There's more to fantasy than halflings, in fact, considering centuries of fantasy, Halflings are n00bs compared to elves and dwarves.

Traditional in D&D is not the same as traditional in fantasy. Unless one thinks Old Good Tolkien started it all...

Again, we should respect each other preferences on DDN...


----------



## boredgremlin

If it were up to me it would just be humans, dwarves, elves and halflings in the PHB. 

 Add in a section similar to 3e's savage species that gives a good guideline how to turn any creature in the MM into a playable race and then leave it up to individual DM's to decide if a particular race works in their world or not.


----------



## avin

boredgremlin said:


> If it were up to me it would just be humans, dwarves, elves and halflings in the PHB.
> 
> Add in a section similar to 3e's savage species that gives a good guideline how to turn any creature in the MM into a playable race and then leave it up to individual DM's to decide if a particular race works in their world or not.




So, you are saying that you can't say NO to a race in your games?


----------



## SKyOdin

Bedrockgames said:


> I think it is fair to say that tieflings aren't standard fantasy. Pick up most fantasy novels and you pretty consistently run into variants on dwarves, elves, orcs, halfings, and gnomes. Those are the standard races in addition to human. In video games you see a lot more beastial races and stuff, but I say keep the standard traditional races (after all 4e is the only edition that introduces anything outside these core races in the phb) in the PHB and put the newer 4E races in a supplement.




I actually really doubt that "most" fantasy novels have dwarves and elves, let alone more unusual or exotic races such as gnomes or halflings. Most fantasy novels I have read tend to primarily focus on humans. I have never read a fantasy novel other than Tolkien's work that included halflings. The only novel series I can think of off the top of my head to include gnomes and D&Dish elves is the Shannara series, and the gnomes in that are nothing like in D&D. I would argue that there is no standardization in the fantasy genre whatsoever, and that trying call any one race in particular "standard", while pointing to another as "unusual" is rather silly.


----------



## boredgremlin

avin said:


> So, you are saying that you can't say NO to a race in your games?




If you had actually read you would see that i said the exact opposite. 

I think every remotely plausible creature in the MM should be open to be mechanically used as races and its the sole province of the DM to decide on a case by case basis what works and what doesnt for his game. 

Reading comprehension dude, its a good thing in an RPG fan.


----------



## Bedrockgames

CasvalRemDeikun said:


> Tieflings were kind of a big thing in 2E as well, but that isn't the point.  I disagree that they should focus on what was acceptable for the previous three editions and ignore the latest one.  That would be a colossal mistake.  They are better served paying attention to ALL of their source material.  Like you said, it wouldn't be a deal breaker for most people to have races they don't use be in the books.  The MM is likely to have Drow in it, a monster I have NEVER used in my games, but that is my problem, so I just don't use them.




Teiflings weren't core in 2E, they were associated with settings. 

It wouldn't be a dealbreaker for me, but I thi it will be for many who dont like 4E. 

The MM is different. As are any optional race books they put out. You can never have too many monsters and non standard races are a great way to mix things up, but in the core I say stick with the more established races.


----------



## Bedrockgames

avin said:


> What? Tieflings was a major presence on Planescape, not just 3E and 4E fans like them. Most Tiefling fans come from AD&D2E, not 4E. This is heresy!
> 
> ...




I am a huge 2E guy, but teifling were not core races. As you point out, they were planescape. I ran Ravenloft, so putting them in the core PHB would have been the last thing I wanted in a 2E PHB. Just like others wouldn't want half vistani in there.

Edit: just want to add the reason i associated them with 4e and3e, is they are a core race in 4E and in 3E i recall lots of players making them using the templates from the MM. In 2E I rarely saw them outside a planescape campaign.


----------



## Bedrockgames

SKyOdin said:


> I actually really doubt that "most" fantasy novels have dwarves and elves, let alone more unusual or exotic races such as gnomes or halflings. Most fantasy novels I have read tend to primarily focus on humans. I have never read a fantasy novel other than Tolkien's work that included halflings. The only novel series I can think of off the top of my head to include gnomes and D&Dish elves is the Shannara series, and the gnomes in that are nothing like in D&D. I would argue that there is no standardization in the fantasy genre whatsoever, and that trying call any one race in particular "standard", while pointing to another as "unusual" is rather silly.




I agree that I probably overstated the case here. Most fantasy novels tend to feature humans. But there are also a large number of tolkein inspired series with the standard alotment of demihumans (usually when I encounter diverse racial settings those are there). But the bigger point for me really is I think most standard fantasy rpg campaigna feature the standard cast of elves, dwarves, halflings, etc.


----------



## steeldragons

avin said:


> More and more I'm forced to believe there are a lot of Tolkien fans among D&D assuming the only game allowedy is tolkienesque fantasy... outside that is "badwrongfun".
> 
> It's not.




Far be it from me to stick my nose into this part of the conversation [though, I guess, apparently not], but I don't believe anyone here is saying that.

And, I believe, avin, you posted in this thread or some other about the fact you only play Dark Sun nad Planescape and homebrews...so those that don't?....are they have badwrongfun?

I've never heard anyone argue so vehemently against halflings and gnomes. Nor so "in favor" of tieflings. Because they're in Planescape?

Is that the defining factor now? How does this make you any "better/worse" than those who want to hold/bring back/enjoy a traditional D&D or even "Tolkienesque" fantasy?



avin said:


> There's more to fantasy than halflings,




aaaand, there it is again.



avin said:


> in fact, considering centuries of fantasy, Halflings are n00bs compared to elves and dwarves.




In the annuls of fantasy literature...or what we take as "fantasy" literature now that was once heroic tale-telling, Beowulf, the Morte D'Artur, Gilgamesh and Enkidu, the Tuatha de Danaan in the Book of Invasions, etc...

Teiflings are to Halflings what halflings are to...?



avin said:


> Traditional in D&D is not the same as traditional in fantasy. Unless one thinks Old Good Tolkien started it all...




Well...ya know...he kinda did. D&D, from the day one, made no bones about beign based, largely, off of Tolkien's (amongst others) work. In the attempt/idea that you could have "individual characters" that played, kinda, a sort of table-top wargame.

Would halflings have been in Basic D&D if not for Tolkien? Would Balors (which were originally published in the monsters section of OD&D as Balrogs)? Who/where do you think Orcs come from, exactly?

The elves of Tolkien were taken/envisioned, without argument, from lonnnng established elf and fairy Celtic and Breton folklore. The dwarves from Germanic and Norse folklore. Rangers/Aragorn (and thus, "half-elves") were arguably his intermingled with the concept of people who had met/mingled/spent time in the fairie world. 

Give it another 20 or so years...the original creator of Tieflings will rouse his mighty head and have his place among the D&D greats...it's just not now/yet.

Because, I severely doubt you will argue, the 4e tiefling is not the 2e tiefling. The 2e originator of the tiefling idea, will be great among [TTRPG gamer] men...and women. Arguably, EGG might get some credit, since Iuz the Cambion was a known character/concept in Greyhawk since gods know when. But be that as it may... 



avin said:


> Again, we should respect each other preferences on DDN...




Could not agree more.

But statements about the lack of necessity for halflings or gnomes (which appear in a great many Germanic cultures, as well as Brownies and assorted other fairy appear in the legends of the UK and seem to have been lumped into the D&D gnome...where'd the Rumplestilskin tale come from? I don't actually recall at the moment), cuz you don't see or have players using them in Planescape does not seem to echo this sentiment.

--SD


----------



## TwinBahamut

Bedrockgames said:


> But the bigger point for me really is I think most standard fantasy rpg campaigna feature the standard cast of elves, dwarves, halflings, etc.



If this is true, isn't the main reason for it because those are the list of races from the D&D PHB? It is the kind of thing where the designers decisions over which races to include has affected many home campaigns, which has in turn affected many people's idea of what default fantasy is. It is the "chicken or the egg" issue. That is why it is a difficult argument for people to accept. The original establishment of those races was arbitrary. As such, proclaiming that they are the best choices and that anything else is less suitable for being included in the PHB is equally arbitrary.

There is also the fact that there is a huge difference between four different realms of inspiration for people. Myth, fantasy novels, other fantasy fiction (like videogames), and previous tabletop games all inspire people, and they often disagree and differ heavily in many respects. For example, based on D&D tradition, dwarves and drow are totally different things, but the idea of dwarves and dark elves are basically identical in myth. As such, there is no single precedent that can be correct or even widely-held.


----------



## Bedrockgames

TwinBahamut said:


> If this is true, isn't the main reason for it because those are the list of races from the D&D PHB? It is the kind of thing where the designers decisions over which races to include has affected many home campaigns, which has in turn affected many people's idea of what default fantasy is. It is the "chicken or the egg" issue. That is why it is a difficult argument for people to accept. The original establishment of those races was arbitrary. As such, proclaiming that they are the best choices and that anything else is less suitable for being included in the PHB is equally arbitrary.




I agree completely. These races aren't ideal forms of the best possible campaign. That isn't my argument. But the point is, D&D has created a preference for these races by using them over the years (and I think they are helped by things like tolkein and a vague awareness of european folklore). This has become the standard, it is part of the D&D brand in the same way vancian casting is. It is the reason people who stuck with D&D over the years kept coming back. If they are trying to keep customers, they would be wise to produce something recognizeably D&D rather than try to turn D&D into a different game. And it isn't that I am closed minded about other options. i play lots of alternatives to D&D that are completely different in flavor and mechanically, but when I play D&D it is because I want Vancian casting, demihumans and all the rest. If I want something else there are better games out there for new and interesting mechanics or settings.


----------



## boredgremlin

Lets throw a wrench in this argument...... gremlin at work, wrench, get it?

Anyway who says we stick with traditional fantasy but say screw Tolkien? His world was kinda boring and way too black and white. 

Lets rebuild D&D from the ground up using Moorecock. 

Good and Evil? Boring. Lets use law and chaos as the central battle of the planes. 

Great wheel? Stick it. Moorecock had a decidedly more Lovecraftian approach to the outer realms. Madness and mind bending magic. Make the outer planes truly, deeply, weird and terrifying. 

Races? Chaos touched demon races, evil elf Melniboneans, magi-tech style humans from the hawkmoon books. Tons of good real world mythology touched but with a scary acid trip edge races in moorecock. 


   That would solve a lot of these debates just by virtue of being so different that everyone would create whole new things to argue about. LOL they would still argue but thats human nature, never gonna change. At least it would be new and more interesting arguments.


----------



## Bedrockgames

The setting backbone you propose boredgremlin is perfeclty fine, but the issue is rebuilding D&D is going to drive away more people than it attracts. Like I said, people play D&D because it is D&D, not beause it has potential to be something better.


----------



## steeldragons

boredgremlin said:


> Lets throw a wrench in this argument...... gremlin at work, wrench, get it?




I don't play steampunk. 

Yes. yes. I get it. Boredgremlin, a truer profile name twas never known.

Nice try.

I doubt it will alleviate it. But points for trying.

[EDIT] And apparently I'm in the "need to spread it around camp"...but still, nice try.  [/EDIT]
--SD


----------



## boredgremlin

Bedrockgames said:


> The setting backbone you propose boredgremlin is perfeclty fine, but the issue is rebuilding D&D is going to drive away more people than it attracts. Like I said, people play D&D because it is D&D, not beause it has potential to be something better.




Ya know i was half kidding but the more I think about it you really wouldnt need to change all that much in how an average game actually plays out. 

You would still have swords and sorcery dungeon crawling, evil wizards and monsters, treasure and BBEGS out to destroy the world. 

The flavor would just be a little different. Instead of an orc tribe you might run into a tribe of big, green, mutant humanoid creatures whose exposure to some source of chaotic magic has warped them into bloodthirsty savages who prey on the human villages around them. 

Demons would be a little less mindless killing machines that later editions turned them into and a little more distant, mysterious but certainly sinister tempters. Who naturally could also kick your ass if they wanted to but thats not what they are there for. 

Even if not core at least a setting supplement based on Moorecock would be something that would probably get my money.


----------



## Klaus

Libramarian said:


> The races are from Tolkien though.



Not really.

Compare the elves from the Hobbit or Lord of the Rings with the original elf (which was in itself a class, but was essentially a "fighter/magic-user"). Apart from proficency with bows, not much reflects the tall, woodsy Tolkien elves.

The D&D elves were more strongly influenced by the elves from Poul Anderson's books "Three Hearts & Three Lions" and "The Broken Sword". The description of elves in these books is pretty much spot-on for the original high elves and grey elves.


----------



## Bedrockgames

boredgremlin said:


> Ya know i was half kidding but the more I think about it you really wouldnt need to change all that much in how an average game actually plays out.
> 
> You would still have swords and sorcery dungeon crawling, evil wizards and monsters, treasure and BBEGS out to destroy the world.
> 
> The flavor would just be a little different. Instead of an orc tribe you might run into a tribe of big, green, mutant humanoid creatures whose exposure to some source of chaotic magic has warped them into bloodthirsty savages who prey on the human villages around them.
> 
> Demons would be a little less mindless killing machines that later editions turned them into and a little more distant, mysterious but certainly sinister tempters. Who naturally could also kick your ass if they wanted to but thats not what they are there for.
> 
> Even if not core at least a setting supplement based on Moorecock would be something that would probably get my money.




That is the beauty of a robust setting line. My favorite edition was 2E and the grwat thing about it was it had a pretty neutral set of core classes and races, but endless possibilities with settings and option books. This is how I would approach it. Keep the core standar D&D but focus on putting out great supplements that help GMs tailor their settings.


----------



## TwinBahamut

Bedrockgames said:


> It is the reason people who stuck with D&D over the years kept coming back. If they are trying to keep customers, they would be wise to produce something recognizeably D&D rather than try to turn D&D into a different game. And it isn't that I am closed minded about other options. i play lots of alternatives to D&D that are completely different in flavor and mechanically, but when I play D&D it is because I want Vancian casting, demihumans and all the rest. If I want something else there are better games out there for new and interesting mechanics or settings.



I'll disagree with a few aspects of this.

I don't see the PHB inclusion of things like tieflings, half-orcs, or dragonborn as "turning D&D into a different game." After all, such races have been in D&D for most of its length, in some form or another. It is not changing it into something else so much as it is bringing some of its own identity more visibly to the forefront. Of course, I'd also like to see races in D&D that have classically not been available as options, but I don't see that as turning it into a different game either. It expands the game, but that doesn't mean it becomes something different. The infinite potential for expansion and variation has always been one of the game's key elements.

D&D with a few new races is still much more recognizably D&D than the old Immortals set from BECMI, if you ask me. 

Also, I'll disagree with the idea that D&D should stick to a single, static concept and leave everything else to different games. That is not how the market leader for the entire hobby, which sells itself as a game for letting players use their own imagination and build their own worlds, is ever going to work. The creators and players of D&D are far more ambitious than that. Staying the same without change is nothing more than a slow death.


----------



## Bedrockgames

TwinBahamut said:


> Also, I'll disagree with the idea that D&D should stick to a single, static concept and leave everything else to different games. That is not how the market leader for the entire hobby, which sells itself as a game for letting players use their own imagination and build their own worlds, is ever going to work. The creators and players of D&D are far more ambitious than that. Staying the same without change is nothing more than a slow death.




I am strictly talking about the core. Like I said, love new and interesting settings for D&D. Darksun, planescape, al-qadim and Ravenlift were some of my favorites. But if they suddenly released a PHB without halflings and dwarved, but with a bunch of darksun races, there would be some brand confusion. D&D has always had great options to pick from but these generally haven't bern in the core book. I am just saying it is probably better to stick to the core races D&D fans expect. 

D&D is actually slipping from its leadership position, not because they failed to innovate but because they over innovated and lost some of their brand identity. There have always been better options than D&D for revolutionary mrchanics and "cutting edge" design (as well as unique core concepts). D&D should play to its strengths as a brand. Understanding its customers and why they like D&D is key, breaking new ground and trying to convince fans to follow is folly for them. The place to experiment is settings and supps. But the core should be identifiable as D&D.


----------



## Kynn

Bedrockgames said:


> I think it is fair to say that tieflings aren't standard fantasy. Pick up most fantasy novels and you pretty consistently run into variants on dwarves, elves, orcs, halfings, and gnomes.




Which "most fantasy novels" are you talking about? Because I don't think the majority of fantasy novels out thre are anything like this.


----------



## Savage Wombat

Kynn said:


> Which "most fantasy novels" are you talking about? Because I don't think the majority of fantasy novels out thre are anything like this.




I can think of plenty of fantasy novels who meet this requirement.  But almost all of them are attempting to rip off LotR or D&D, so it's a circular inspiration.

Arguing over terms like "a majority" is pointless unless you want to dig up numbers.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Kynn said:


> Which "most fantasy novels" are you talking about? Because I don't think the majority of fantasy novels out thre are anything like this.




I acknowledged I probably overstated this position a few posts back. I also rephrased my position a bit.


----------



## Kynn

Savage Wombat said:


> I can think of plenty of fantasy novels who meet this requirement.  But almost all of them are attempting to rip off LotR or D&D, so it's a circular inspiration.




Cool, name a few.


----------



## thewok

NN said:


> Half orcs can be core. Theyre a bog standard fantasy trope.
> 
> Tieflings arent. They belong in a "Supplement if you want a setting with lots of interplanar interaction "
> 
> Half dragons belong in a "Supplement: Dragon*******s - So, you want rampant horny dragon interspecies sex ."



Tieflings in my world are not a planar species.  They are the 4E tieflings, whose ancestors made pacts with devils.  They are natural humanoids, just like humans.  They are not immortals or outsiders or whatever origin the 2E/3E tieflings were.  You may wish to limit tieflings to "interplanar interaction," but I have no desire to do so.

I've never played a half-dragon.  I have, however, played a Dragonborn (not at all a half-dragon), and I have played a half-elf who has dragon blood somewhere in her ancestry (a major NPC in my campaign world).  At no point in the playing of these characters did "rampant horny dragon interspecies sex" even get mentioned--apart from some light-hearted jokes now and then.  The dragonborn are a species related to dragons, but _are not dragons_.

You may not like these as core races, but many people, including me, do.  If they are included in the PHB, you have the ability to say, "These do not exist in my world as player races."  If they are not in the PHB, I lack the ability to include them without trying to come up with some weird homebrew equivalent that may or may not be anywhere close to what WotC publishes six months down the line.  And I don't want that headache.


----------



## avin

boredgremlin said:


> If you had actually read you would see that i said the exact opposite.
> 
> I think every remotely plausible creature in the MM should be open to be mechanically used as races and its the sole province of the DM to decide on a case by case basis what works and what doesnt for his game.
> 
> Reading comprehension dude, its a good thing in an RPG fan.




As there were people, in this very topic, advocating "alien" races should be only in MM because they didn't want to argue with their players about races not allowed in their campaign it's perfectly reasonable to come to the same conclusion after reading your post. 

My point is: I want full race entries for a lot of races, not some half-made entries on Monster Manual, like we had on 3E.


----------



## Bedrockgames

avin said:


> As there were people, in this very topic, advocating "alien" races should be only in MM because they didn't want to argue with their players about races not allowed in their campaign it's perfectly reasonable to come to the same conclusion after reading your post.
> 
> My point is: I want full race entries for a lot of races, not some half-made entries on Monster Manual, like we had on 3E.




What about a seperate book of optional races? That way you get the core in the PHB, but you have tons of optional races with full entries to customize yur campaign. Personally I like to have have ogres in my settings, but i dont expect them to be included in the phb.


----------



## avin

Bedrockgames said:


> What about a seperate book of optional races? That way you get the core in the PHB, but you have tons of optional races with full entries to customize yur campaign. Personally I like to have have ogres in my settings, but i dont expect them to be included in the phb.




It would take too long, people want it asap... I could compromise on DDI articles, if at least most of the so-called exotic races were available as PHB launches...


----------



## Bedrockgames

@Morrus;







avin said:


> It would take too long, people want it asap... I could compromise on DDI articles, if at least major of the so-called exotic races were available as PHB launches...




Sure. I needed gnomes ASAP when 4E came out, so I understand peoples campaigns cant wait.


----------



## Aeolius

avin said:


> I want full race entries for a lot of races, not some half-made entries on Monster Manual, like we had on 3E.



   And I want a PH with a reasonable page count, to keep the book affordable to new players. 



> I could compromise on DDI articles, if at least most of the so-called exotic races were available as PHB launches...



   Compromise. Make the intelligent races in the MM playable but presented with only the bare essentials, thus keeping the page count of the MM manageable. The entries could be expanded upon later, in Ecology articles and the like. 



Bedrockgames said:


> Sure. I needed gnomes ASAP when 4E came out, so I understand peoples campaigns cant wait.



   When 4e was announced, I fully intended to test out the rules with an all-animal campaign concept of mine. Alas, the initial 3 rulebooks had no greenhags, druids, or Awaken spell - all crucial components to the campaign concept.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aeolius said:


> When 4e was announced, I fully intended to test out the rules with an all-animal campaign concept of mine. Alas, the initial 3 rulebooks had no greenhags, druids, or Awaken spell - all crucial components to the campaign concept.




one of the great things about the 3e monster manual is they gave enough info so it was easy to convert them to player races.


----------



## Savage Wombat

Kynn said:


> Cool, name a few.




Dennis McKiernan's Mithgar series.
Terry Brooks' Shanarra series - or so I've been told anyway.
Practically any books designed to tie-in to video games and RPGs, especially in the late 80s.
Practically anything written by Margaret Weis.


----------



## gyor

variant said:


> I didn't like it when the half-orc appeared in 3e, and I liked it even less when i saw Tiefling in 4e. These types of half races should just be stuffed in some addon book somewhere. Give me the basic races in the PHB: Human, elf, halfling, and dwarf.
> 
> The reason is that I usually don't play with half-monster races, and I am tired of hearing "but it's in the Player's Handbook..." anytime I form a group to play in my local book store.




Removing choice from other people for your minor convience isn't fair to those that do want those races in, because they don't want to wait a year or more for them. I say this as someone who doesn't play halforcs.

 I'm so tire of the lets removed options crowd that wants to ruin 5e for everyone else, because other wise that crowd might be inconvienced by people that like choice and gasp, we can have someone who likes half orcs getting uppity.

 This isn't an edition wars post btw, its fatigue with the options miniumalists trying to stifle choice of every body else at every turn so that they can control thier games. The rest of us have to lose out because some in thier game may want to play something other then the most basic tolkiensic characters.

 From threads like lets only have fighter, wizard, rogue, and cleric classes, to lets only have elf, human, halfing, dwarf, and gnomes leave me fatigued. If this is who they listen too I predict complete failure of 5e, because those not interested in  a tolkiensic game, and,thier are many of us, will not be interested.

 Thankfully this doesn't appear to be the direction they appear to be going.

 Sorry for the rant, I'm usually more positive and understanding, but these miniumalist thread are starting to get at me.


----------



## Danzauker

I think the next PHB should showcase a good selection of races that cover the largest range of archetypes, given space constraints of course.

Fantasy is not just Tolkien anymore. And neither is Vance (who is, BTW, almost unknown in many countries outside USA). Fantasy is also Harry Potter and Narnia. Fantasy has lots of fans in anime and videogame enthusiasts, and even Star Wars, Flash Gordon and Avatar can be in some part be called fantasy.

Given that Human, Elf and Dwarf are almost universal, would a random person be more likely to know what a Gnome is or what an Halfling is (Hobbit maybe)? 

Would the big guy race be better covered by an obscure "goliath" or an instantly recognized "minotaur"? Wouldn't a Full Metal Alchemist fan be delighted by being able to play Alphonse out of the box using a Warforged? And wouldn't be Flash Gordon style bird people and furry cat people be more appealing than Drows, which are after all almost unknown except among D&D players?

Of course, between having a lot of stuff badly done and little stuff done well, and the other in optional books, I prefer the latter approach, but RPGs for what I know are already famous among the common crowd to require you to buy a lot of books in order to play, so a PHB that presents a good selection of different races would serve IMHO the game better than just 4 or 5 classic races.

In my very personal selection I'd like to see:

Human
Elf
Dwarf
Halfling and/or Gnome
Orc

All those races could have mechanics to make half-races or be customized for ezamples in Wild Elves and Wood Elves

Then some more uncommon archetypes, with maybe less customization options

Reptilians/Dragonborn
Furries/Shifters
Big Guys/Minotaurs or Ogre or Goliath or something like that
Bird people/Aarakokra or some other race
dark emo race (people seem to love that)/Tiefling or Drow

It's up to the guidelines to explain that the races presented in the PHB are just tools to build your own game, and that if you want to play A Song of Fire and Ice you can well just use only Humans and you're fine.


----------



## Hassassin

avin said:


> My point is: I want full race entries for a lot of races, not some half-made entries on Monster Manual, like we had on 3E.




Simple: Make full entries short enough that you can fit one for each MM race.

Do you mean the fluff or the crunch? I think whoever absolutely needs his gnome or dragonborn can live with low fluff, because they already know it. OTOH new players are likely to be OK with whatever they find in the PHB, assuming there's enough choice and the classics are there.


----------



## avin

Aeolius said:


> Compromise. Make the intelligent races in the MM playable but presented with only the bare essentials, thus keeping the page count of the MM manageable. The entries could be expanded upon later, in Ecology articles and the like.




4E had more races and a lot of white space. I don't think 3-4 extra races would explode page count.

As for price? Well, there's starter books for that... I don't think RPG is an expensive hobby for newcomers. 



Hassassin said:


> Simple: Make full entries short enough that you can fit one for each MM race.
> 
> Do you mean the fluff or the crunch? I think whoever absolutely needs his gnome or dragonborn can live with low fluff, because they already know it. OTOH new players are likely to be OK with whatever they find in the PHB, assuming there's enough choice and the classics are there.




More fluff than crunch, but I think we are still discussing removing races from PHB because some people just want to play humans/elves/dwarves/halflings... and I still don't get why more options hurt other people's fun.


----------



## Stormonu

I agree with the "short" entries.  You can fit a lot of info in one column of text about a race.  If someone wants more info than that, it becomes a perfect place to create a supplementary book about the race - like the 2E Complete Race books.

For example, this is the racial description for dwarves in my own game.  It only takes up a single column on a page, and I think its informative enough for most games.  The mechanics take 1/3 of a column, not included.

[sblock]
Literally sculpted from stone in their parent's forges, dwarves are squat humanoids who tend to be dour, stoic and clannish.  Generally living beneath the earth, they are known for their skill at creating masterful works of art.  Likewise, they are known for their greed and fondness for drink.  

Physical Traits  
Dwarves tend to be stocky, averaging 4' 2” to 4' 6” in height and about 200-250 lbs.  They tend to have stone-colored skin, ranging from an earthy sandstone color through various shades of granite gray and into coal black colors.  It is not uncommon for nobility or royalty to have glossy, marbled skin in colors ranging from white, black or green and in extremely rare cases, with gold flecking.  Dwarven eyes tend to steel gray, brown or black with gray or golden flecks.  Some dwarves are naturally bald (a trait determined at creation) or may sport hair in earthy tones, gray or stark black colors.  Dwarven hair tends to be strait, though some clans prefer curly hair.  A dwarf with hair tends to wear it long and/or braided. Male dwarves tend to be bearded.  Most dwarven males revere their beards and will trim and decorate them in intricate patterns.  

Culture 
Dwarves tend to live in defensive holds built into the sides of mountains or under hills.  There, they toil to mine the earth of precious metals and craft it into beautiful works of art, some of which they are willing to part with in trade for other things they need from the other races. While holdings can vary greatly, most tend towards rigid, lawful hierarchal societies where one's skill as a craftsman determines social rank.  Guilds are the most common organization in the hold, each dedicated to a particular craft.  These crafts are usually dedicated to a particular form of metalworking, but can also include other crafts such as brewing, carpentry, stonemason and even soldiering. Most holds are ruled by a king/queen or lord/lady with a council of guild masters who acts as the hold's nobility.  The guilds themselves are usually composed of clans of dwarves who follow a singular lineage; branching out from one's family guild is often seen as a betrayal of one's family.  

[/sblock]


----------



## Hassassin

avin said:


> More fluff than crunch, but I think we are still discussing removing races from PHB because some people just want to play humans/elves/dwarves/halflings... and I still don't get why more options hurt other people's fun.




They shouldn't remove races for that reason, but I don't think they should have >10 races in the PHB either (seven is a nice number...). I don't want a 500+ page book and even 300 pages is in my opinion a bit much.

In any case, racial fluff is something that should be expanded in race and setting specific books, IMO.


----------



## Ratinyourwalls

I disagree. I like both in the core book. They provide a necessary core set diversion from the generics like Elves and Dwarves.


----------



## Khaalis

Personally, I'd like to see the books go back to 3E format (smaller text, wider columns, more 'encyclopedic' and less 'magazine' in layout). In that format you can pack a lot of information. Then, I wouldn't mind seeing a fairly decent number of races at perhaps a maximum of 1 page per race (including art, fluff and stat-block). Then, as noted, you could release a new version of Complete Races to increase the amount of fluff and offer new options for those races.


----------



## Kynn

Savage Wombat said:


> Dennis McKiernan's Mithgar series.
> Terry Brooks' Shanarra series - or so I've been told anyway.
> Practically any books designed to tie-in to video games and RPGs, especially in the late 80s.
> Practically anything written by Margaret Weis.




Except these don't fit the requirements of "the races are human, elf, dwarf, halfling and gnome."

None of them do.


----------



## Ratinyourwalls

5E core should copy Skyrim race choices.

So:

Dragonborn, Drow, High Elf, Wood Elf, Lizardmen, Humans, Half-Elves, Catfolk.


----------



## Stormonu

Ratinyourwalls said:


> 5E core should copy Skyrim race choices.
> 
> So:
> 
> Dragonborn, Drow, High Elf, Wood Elf, Lizardmen, Humans, Half-Elves, Catfolk.




I strongly disagree.  5E should copy D&D race choices, not some other game's.


----------



## Somebloke

gyor said:


> Removing choice from other people for your minor convience isn't fair to those that do want those races in, because they don't want to wait a year or more for them. I say this as someone who doesn't play halforcs.
> 
> I'm so tire of the lets removed options crowd that wants to ruin 5e for everyone else, because other wise that crowd might be inconvienced by people that like choice and gasp, we can have someone who likes half orcs getting uppity.
> 
> This isn't an edition wars post btw, its fatigue with the options miniumalists trying to stifle choice of every body else at every turn so that they can control thier games. The rest of us have to lose out because some in thier game may want to play something other then the most basic tolkiensic characters.
> 
> From threads like lets only have fighter, wizard, rogue, and cleric classes, to lets only have elf, human, halfing, dwarf, and gnomes leave me fatigued. If this is who they listen too I predict complete failure of 5e, because those not interested in a tolkiensic game, and,thier are many of us, will not be interested.
> 
> Thankfully this doesn't appear to be the direction they appear to be going.
> 
> Sorry for the rant, I'm usually more positive and understanding, but these miniumalist thread are starting to get at me.




I really agree. The core arguments put forward don't really hold any water. The idea that this could great headaches for DMs that want to ban these races ignores that DnD has always been a modular game, with DM changes/denials an accepted part of play. The idea that they will take up unecessary space strikes me as ridiculous, given the typical space needed to write up a race in the 3rd and 4th editions. And the argument that the ODnD races are alone icons of fantasy is only arguably true if one focused on a very narrow group of fantasy literature/rpgs in the 80s and then never picked up another fantasy book again. Fact is, if fantasy literature as a whole was examined, the only race appearing in the PhB would be humans- everything else would be shuffled to the MM for 'space'. 

Look, I...I despise haflings, dwarves and elves. Especially elves. My goodness, do I hate the pointy-eared smug ****s. But I would never think of attempting to limit or inconvenience other fans by lobbying for their exclusion from the phb. Can't all the edition lovers enjoy the game together?


----------



## hanez

Stormonu said:


> I strongly disagree.  5E should copy D&D race choices, not some other game's.




Can't give you XP or I would lol


----------



## Aeolius

Somebloke said:


> The idea that they will take up unecessary space strikes me as ridiculous, given the typical space needed to write up a race in the 3rd and 4th editions. And the argument that the ODnD races are alone icons of fantasy is only arguably true if one focused on a very narrow group of fantasy literature/rpgs...



   Sea elves, merfolk, and locathah in the 5e PH!! woot!!


----------



## Hassassin

Somebloke said:


> The idea that they will take up unecessary space strikes me as ridiculous, given the typical space needed to write up a race in the 3rd and 4th editions.




It is not at all ridiculous to suggest that there is a practical limit. Where the sweet spot of choice & inclusiveness vs. pages that can't be used for something else lies is debatable.


----------



## Minigiant

Like I said before, the PHB should go for the "tropes" or archetypical builds of species.

Humans as the mundane, adaptable race
Elves as the fragile speedy accurate race (Speed+Offense)
Dwarves as the slow, tough, and powerful race (Offense+Defense)
Halflings as the weak but hard to hit race (Speed+Defense)
Orcs or Half Orcs as the strong but dumb race (Offense+Defense+Speed- Versatility)

plus two or three other special races
Dragonborns (Breath weapon)
Gnomes (natural spellcaster)
Half-Elves (natural multiclasser)
One of the planetouched Tiefling/Aasimar/Genasi (some sort of planar magic attack)
Eladrins (some sort of fey like ability)


----------



## Sunseeker

Aeolius said:


> Sea elves, merfolk, and locathah in the 5e PH!! woot!!




I wouldn't be opposed to the presentation of a few water-based races for all those water-based campaigns out there.

Honestly I've been dying to run one and just never gotten around to it.



Hassassin said:


> It is not at all ridiculous to suggest that  there is a practical limit. Where the sweet spot of choice &  inclusiveness vs. pages that can't be used for something else lies is  debatable.



Sure, but people are suggesting 4 races maximum.  I honestly think that's the FEWEST number of races to ever be presented in core since 1 or 2e.


----------



## ArmoredSaint

I will never understand the appeal of "kitchen sink" or "garbage bin" D&D which demands that a place be found for everything that's ever been released, no matter how weird, off-the-wall, or nontraditional it may be, all in the name of not curtailing the choice options of certain people.

What happened to the days when we could expect that crazy races/classes/items/High Weirdness that were specific to one nontraditional setting would be included only in the player's guide to that setting?  Why is that unreasonable?

What's truly so bad about restricting the initial, core, basic version of the game only to traditional elements that have a long and firmly-established pedigree of being included in the game's core?  Just those elements that originally defined the game's roots and made it great in the first place!  Do you people actually not like *Dungeons and Dragons?  

*'Cause seriously, No *True* Scotsman and all that...


----------



## ArmoredSaint

Few things irritate me more than spending hours and hours preparing a plot plot outline in a particular setting in which what's available has already been defined beforehand, only to set it before the players and have *That One Guy* throw a tantrum because he can't make his Tainted Half-Dragonborn/Half-Shifter FactotumNinjaSorcerer concept work within the parameters of the campaign.

And it's always _*That One Guy*_ who does it.  Every group has one--the guy who gets his jollies from playing nothing but oddball character concepts and rebelling against anything he defines as "too Normal."  It's like he's going through some sort of personal identity crisis and has this driving psychological need to set himself apart and constantly remind everyone around him that he's not just another sheep in the flock like they are.  He demands the spotlight, often in social situations within the story, and gets off on all the drama that surrounds NPCs being revolted by his unusual and generally monstrous PC, detracting from the fun of everyone else around the table, who probably just want to get on with the campaign's storyline and make some progress towards achieving their goal.  He just wants the whole campaign to be about everybody celebrating his diversity.  

Tell him "No," or "You can't do that," or "That's not available," and he flies off the handle, wanting to do it all the more now because he was told that he can't, adding the appeal of rebellion to the appeal of the Weird.

I don't get this guy at all.  To him, D&D is something very different than it is to me.  He hates anything and everything old and traditional; if it's not cutting-edge and totally whacked-out Strange, it can't hold his interest.  What made him this way?  What was his early experience with the game like?  What turned him off so much on the Things That Make D&D What It Is?


----------



## MoxieFu

Kynn said:


> Which "most fantasy novels" are you talking about? Because I don't think the majority of fantasy novels out thre are anything like this.




Get a copy of the Dungeon Masters Guide, first edition.
Turn to Appendix N
Pick any novel
Enjoy

And if anybody is still looking for the "Essence" of D&D? It's here.


----------



## Sunseeker

ArmoredSaint said:


> I will never understand the appeal of "kitchen sink" or "garbage bin" D&D which demands that a place be found for everything that's ever been released, no matter how weird, off-the-wall, or nontraditional it may be, all in the name of not curtailing the choice options of certain people.
> 
> What happened to the days when we could expect that crazy races/classes/items/High Weirdness that were specific to one nontraditional setting would be included only on the player's guide to that setting?  Why is that unreasonable?
> 
> What's truly so bad about restricting the initial, core, basic version of the game only to traditional elements that have a long and firmly-established pedigree of being included in the game's core?  Just those elements that originally defined the game's roots and made it great in the first place!  Do you people actually not like *Dungeons and Dragons?
> 
> *'Cause seriously, No *True* Scotsman and all that...




You write up all this and then tell us that WE are the ones playing a no-true-scotsman fallacy?  Gimme a break.



ArmoredSaint said:


> Few things irritate me more than spending  hours and hours preparing a plot plot outline in a particular setting in  which what's available has already been defined beforehand, only to set  it before the players and have *That One Guy* throw a  tantrum because he can't make his Tainted Half-Dragonborn/Half-Shifter  FactotumNinjaSorcerer concept work within the parameters of the  campaign.



How is that an issue with having options?  You're the DM, tell him NO.   If he doesn't like it, then he is free to use the door.  Honestly from  what you say below it doesn't even sound like someone you'd play with.



> And it's always _*That One Guy*_ who does it.  Every  group has one--the guy who gets his jollies from playing nothing but  oddball character concepts and rebelling against anything he defines as  "too Normal."  It's like he's going through some sort of personal  identity crisis and has this driving psychological need to set himself  apart and constantly remind everyone around him that he's not just  another sheep in the flock like they are.  He demands the spotlight,  often in social situations within the story, and gets off on all the  drama that surrounds NPCs being revolted by his unusual and generally  monstrous PC, detracting from the fun of everyone else around the table,  who probably just want to get on with the campaign's storyline and make  some progress towards achieving their goal.  He just wants the whole  campaign to be about everybody celebrating his diversity.



Again, why are you even playing with this guy?  I get that there are  drama-y people out there but seriously, YOU are the DM, kick him out.   It's not like there's a divine bond between the two of you can he can't be more than 5 feet away.

What you are complaining about is a PLAYER problem not a system problem.



> Tell him "No," or "You can't do that," or "That's not available,"  and he flies off the handle, wanting to do it all the more now because  he was told that he can't, adding the appeal of rebellion to the appeal  of the Weird.



So what?  Why are you playing with such an insane person in the first place?



> I don't get this guy at all.  To him, D&D is something very  different than it is to me.  He hates anything and everything old and  traditional; if it's not cutting-edge and totally whacked-out Strange,  it can't hold his interest.  What made him this way?  What was his early  experience with the game like?  What turned him off so much on the  Things That Make D&D What It Is?



Your entire argument is completly unrelated to include "non-LOTR" races  in Core.  It's an issue with a drama-happy player who gets their kicks  from stirring the pot.  What's even more perverted is that your solution  is to ban what you feel is "weird" from being played by ANYONE,  ANYWHERE until expansions are released years down the road.  Why isn't  your solution just to not play with this guy?


----------



## TwinBahamut

ArmoredSaint said:


> What happened to the days when we could expect that crazy races/classes/items/High Weirdness that were specific to one nontraditional setting would be included only in the player's guide to that setting?  Why is that unreasonable?



Because a lot of people like homebrew settings.

Why should people who like to homebrew have to buy setting books they don't want or need in order to get access to options that they might like? I mean, I love non-traditional races, and I almost always prefer to play in homebrew settings. I don't think that I'm that unusual...



> What's truly so bad about restricting the initial, core, basic version of the game only to traditional elements that have a long and firmly-established pedigree of being included in the game's core?  Just those elements that originally defined the game's roots and made it great in the first place!  Do you people actually not like *Dungeons and Dragons?*



*Well, what is wrong with including elements like the Dragonborn or Tieflings that have at least some of that exact same history of being included in the core?

Also, it is a complete fallacy to equate "not liking extremely limited racial options in the PHB" with "not liking D&D." That makes no sense at all.*


----------



## hikaizer

I play a variety of DnD games, some in more Tolkien-esque settings and many in other bizarre settings. But really the one thought I've had from all of this discussion is the thought that why are we competing for space so much in the core books? I've seen comments of people complaining about races only taking up two pages in the core books if there are too many to choose from. However, isn't 5E supposed to be about choosing what you want mechanically? Wouldn't the core books really be about what you want mechanically out of your game and not thematically or setting-wise? 

If you're not detailing all the setting information in the races section then really they don't need that much in the way of information. 4E actually did okay in this regard where they gave players a basic overview of the nature of the race and some sample names, as well as giving them mechanically what they needed. 

More than anything else I think all that's needed is two _sections_ to the races chapter, with each race having a very simple overview of the default setting stereotype. Then the more specific information is found in the DMG who is the person who really needs most of that information. Any few specific questions the PCs might have aren't going to be related to how to write up their character sheets and so the DM can answer them her/himself.


----------



## TwinBahamut

MoxieFu said:


> Get a copy of the Dungeon Masters Guide, first edition.
> Turn to Appendix N
> Pick any novel
> Enjoy
> 
> And if anybody is still looking for the "Essence" of D&D? It's here.



So, the question is... Is the "Essence of D&D" that exact list of fantasy novels that a bunch of guys liked several decades ago, or is it the idea that D&D should include ideas from of a wide variety of works of contemporary fantasy? I think the latter is far more important. Why should D&D just stop changing and adapting and be mired in reliving the 70s? It would die if it did, and I'd be happy to see it die if it took that kind of short-sighted approach. I want a game that's relevant to me, not a game that solely appeals to the nostalgia of a time from before I was even born. Fortunately, I don't think it will take that approach, so I'll be happy to play the game for quite some time to come.


----------



## Savage Wombat

Maybe what we need is a list of books we DON'T want WotC to use for inspiration.

Twilight, I'm looking at you.


----------



## Savage Wombat

Kynn said:


> Except these don't fit the requirements of "the races are human, elf, dwarf, halfling and gnome."
> 
> None of them do.




Your response is insufficient, especially considering the examples I gave.  If I'm wrong, defend your argument.

Otherwise, to Pythonize, it's not an argument, it's just contradiction.


----------



## thewok

ArmoredSaint said:


> What happened to the days when we could expect that crazy races/classes/items/High Weirdness that were specific to one nontraditional setting would be included only in the player's guide to that setting?  Why is that unreasonable?



They're still here.  I don't think anyone's really asking for warforged, shifters, changelings, kalashtar, genasi (which I call an FR race because I didn't play 2E), muls, thri-kreen, and the like.  We're asking for races which _already have been_ core races to _continue_ to be core races.



> What's truly so bad about restricting the initial, core, basic version of the game only to traditional elements that have a long and firmly-established pedigree of being included in the game's core?  Just those elements that originally defined the game's roots and made it great in the first place!  Do you people actually not like *Dungeons and Dragons?*



Of course we like D&D.  But our definition of D&D seems to be a bit more broad than yours.  D&D has grown beyond cleric, magic user and fighting man.  It's grown beyond human, elf and dwarf.  It's become something more--something all its own, and some nontraditional races--like them or not--are now a core part of _Dungeons & Dragons_.


----------



## Sunseeker

hikaizer said:


> I play a variety of DnD games, some in more Tolkien-esque settings and many in other bizarre settings. But really the one thought I've had from all of this discussion is the thought that why are we competing for space so much in the core books? I've seen comments of people complaining about races only taking up two pages in the core books if there are too many to choose from. However, isn't 5E supposed to be about choosing what you want mechanically? Wouldn't the core books really be about what you want mechanically out of your game and not thematically or setting-wise?
> 
> If you're not detailing all the setting information in the races section then really they don't need that much in the way of information. 4E actually did okay in this regard where they gave players a basic overview of the nature of the race and some sample names, as well as giving them mechanically what they needed.
> 
> More than anything else I think all that's needed is two _sections_ to the races chapter, with each race having a very simple overview of the default setting stereotype. Then the more specific information is found in the DMG who is the person who really needs most of that information. Any few specific questions the PCs might have aren't going to be related to how to write up their character sheets and so the DM can answer them her/himself.




Exactly, a stat-block and a fluff page takes up what, all of two pages?  Maybe a page and a half?  We're looking at what, somewhere between 15 and 20 pages for approx 10 races?  That's not really a lot of room that could have been "better spent" on other things.  Honestly I think we could probably collapse all the "pertinent information" needed to play a race mechnically into a single page, and then include 20 races with little trouble.

I mean, I want my PHB, DMG and MMs to be jam-packed with "relevant information", and I want a lot of it for my money.  For 35-45 dollars PER BOOK, it darn well better have lots and lots of info, not just "the basic 4 races/classes".  "the basics" is what I expect to find in something like the Red Box, in which case I'm fine with only a few choices.


----------



## Mattachine

thewok said:


> Of course we like D&D.  But our definition of D&D seems to be a bit more broad than yours.  D&D has grown beyond cleric, magic user and fighting man.  It's grown beyond human, elf and dwarf.  It's become something more--something all its own, and some nontraditional races--like them or not--are now a core part of _Dungeons & Dragons_.




Exactly. Core is not OD&D or AD&D. It has grown and changed.


----------



## Pour

Yes they should. Put all races from all editions' PHB in there. If the designers can manage the classes, they certainly can manage the races.


----------



## MoxieFu

TwinBahamut said:


> So, the question is... Is the "Essence of D&D" that exact list of fantasy novels that a bunch of guys liked several decades ago, or is it the idea that D&D should include ideas from of a wide variety of works of contemporary fantasy? I think the latter is far more important. Why should D&D just stop changing and adapting and be mired in reliving the 70s? It would die if it did, and I'd be happy to see it die if it took that kind of short-sighted approach. I want a game that's relevant to me, not a game that solely appeals to the nostalgia of a time from before I was even born. Fortunately, I don't think it will take that approach, so I'll be happy to play the game for quite some time to come.




Because when the wheel has already been invented it cuts down a great deal on speculation what a wheel is in the first place.

People are speculating on how to "innovate" to solve problems that they perceive to exist. Many people do not have these problems because they already have a perfectly useful "wheel". Why declare that the wheel does not exist and then speculate how to create one?

D&Dnext is supposed to be designed to consolidate the editions, not drive them further apart. Understanding where the game came from will allow you to see this consolidation. Ignoring that will bring about more divergent change. That's going completely in the opposite direction the current designers have announced that they are going.

Right now the goal of the new edition is Consolidation.
If they succeed in that, then they can concentrate on true innovation and not change just for the sake of change.


----------



## Sunseeker

MoxieFu said:


> Because when the wheel has already been invented it cuts down a great deal on speculation what a wheel is in the first place.



That doesn't mean we haven't invented BETTER wheels since the dawn of time.



> People are speculating on how to "innovate" to solve problems that they perceive to exist. Many people do not have these problems because they already have a perfectly useful "wheel". Why declare that the wheel does not exist and then speculate how to create one?



The "problem" here is one thing and one thing alone: people suggesting that their definition of D&D is the ONLY acceptable one.



> D&Dnext is supposed to be designed to consolidate the editions, not drive them further apart. Understanding where the game came from will allow you to see this consolidation. Ignoring that will bring about more divergent change. That's going completely in the opposite direction the current designers have announced that they are going.



Understanding where the game came from is not the same as reverting to it's original form.  Improvments have been made, content has been added.  You cannot seriously expect them to just dump all that in favor or remaking OD&D.



> Right now the goal of the new edition is Consolidation.
> If they succeed in that, then they can concentrate on true innovation and not change just for the sake of change.



Who's changing anything?  The only people talking about CHANGE are the people who want D&D to only have 4 races until Wizards deigns to release new ones.  All the races most people are in support of were already previously included in the game.


----------



## MoxieFu

shidaku said:


> That doesn't mean we haven't invented BETTER wheels since the dawn of time.
> 
> The "problem" here is one thing and one thing alone: people suggesting that their definition of D&D is the ONLY acceptable one.
> 
> 
> Understanding where the game came from is not the same as reverting to it's original form.  Improvments have been made, content has been added.  You cannot seriously expect them to just dump all that in favor or remaking OD&D.
> 
> Who's changing anything?  The only people talking about CHANGE are the people who want D&D to only have 4 races until Wizards deigns to release new ones.  All the races most people are in support of were already previously included in the game.





And all that wonderful "improvement" in 4e has brought us right where we are today. If all that improvement was so good why are we looking at a new edition of the game in record time? All the changes were NOT for the better and the edition failed. The facts speak for themselves, but you can't hear it if you refuse to listen.


----------



## Savage Wombat

Dear MoxieFu:

Your argument about the "feel of D&D" has truth to it.  But if you phrase it as "only books on this list from the 70s" you are alienating yourself to 40 years of gamers.

My suggestion: please list some works from later periods - movies, books, TV, whatever - that you feel fits the same D&D feel that you prefer.  You may also list works that you feel work against that feel, for contrast.


----------



## Sunseeker

MoxieFu said:


> And all that wonderful "improvement" in 4e has brought us right where we are today. If all that improvement was so good why are we looking at a new edition of the game in record time? All the changes were NOT for the better and the edition failed. The facts speak for themselves, but you can't hear it if you refuse to listen.




3e came out sooner after 2e than 2e came after 1e.  4e came out sooner than that.  Wizards is in the job of making money, and the whips of their masters Hasbro are pushing them ever harder to justify their existence with more dollars.  Long downtime between editions with minor supplementary content simply will not suffice any longer.

Your "evidence" that 4e was "bad" which is the reason for 5e is anecdotal at best and mostly personal opinion.  4e didn't fail by any margin, it brought in huge numbers of players to a genre that was dying.  It may have "failed" by the standards of people who haven't bought a D&D book since 1985, but frankly, I doubt those people are any more inclined to buy 5e than they were to buy 4e.

EDIT: also, if your only purpose here is to bash 4e and claim 1e was the greatest wheel ever, I'd suggest against it.


----------



## MoxieFu

Savage Wombat said:


> Dear MoxieFu:
> 
> Your argument about the "feel of D&D" has truth to it.  But if you phrase it as "only books on this list from the 70s" you are alienating yourself to 40 years of gamers.
> 
> My suggestion: please list some works from later periods - movies, books, TV, whatever - that you feel fits the same D&D feel that you prefer.  You may also list works that you feel work against that feel, for contrast.




Where are you getting these words from that you quote me as saying?

Methinks you are putting words in my mouth. Someone had stated upthread this:

"I think it is fair to say that tieflings aren't standard fantasy. Pick up most fantasy novels and you pretty consistently run into variants on dwarves, elves, orcs, halfings, and gnomes."

Then someone else asked this:

"Which "most fantasy novels" are you talking about? Because I don't think the majority of fantasy novels out thre are anything like this."

My original quote was in answer to that. Now I know that many novels have been written since then, but I'll be willing to bet that any that mention "tiefling" was written after the publication of the Planescape Setting.  I would also double down on the wager that the novel would be set in the Planescape setting, such as Pages of Pain, which I do own and have read.

So yes, I have read a new book or two in the last 40 years.


----------



## Sunseeker

MoxieFu said:


> "I think it is fair to say that tieflings aren't standard fantasy. Pick up most fantasy novels and you pretty consistently run into variants on dwarves, elves, orcs, halfings, and gnomes."



In response to both you and them, who plays D&D for "standard" fantasy?  I don't play D&D for "standard" fantasy, "standard" adventures or anything "standard" at all.  I play D&D to have fun, which includes all sorts of things from hobbits to half-dragons.  Why do you feel your level of fun is diminished through allowing me to have my fun?



> My original quote was in answer to that. Now I know that many novels have been written since then, but I'll be willing to bet that any that mention "tiefling" was written after the publication of the Planescape Setting.  I would also double down on the wager that the novel would be set in the Planescape setting, such as Pages of Pain, which I do own and have read.



Probably because tiefling is one of the few things that Wizards has been able to hold copyright over.  I honestly can't think of a book which includes them(even in a very cursory way) that isn't published under the D&D license.  Even so, half-demon creatures exist in a wide variety of mythical lore, even if they're not explicitly called "tieflings".  Unlike Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes and so on, tiefling was largely created by Wizards.


----------



## MoxieFu

shidaku said:


> 3e came out sooner after 2e than 2e came after 1e.  4e came out sooner than that.  Wizards is in the job of making money, and the whips of their masters Hasbro are pushing them ever harder to justify their existence with more dollars.  Long downtime between editions with minor supplementary content simply will not suffice any longer.
> 
> Your "evidence" that 4e was "bad" which is the reason for 5e is anecdotal at best and mostly personal opinion.  4e didn't fail by any margin, it brought in huge numbers of players to a genre that was dying.  It may have "failed" by the standards of people who haven't bought a D&D book since 1985, but frankly, I doubt those people are any more inclined to buy 5e than they were to buy 4e.
> 
> EDIT: also, if your only purpose here is to bash 4e and claim 1e was the greatest wheel ever, I'd suggest against it.




Actually I began playing 1e in 1980. Eventually trying to houserule 1e into something I was satisfied nearly drove me to madness. I was relieved when 2e came out but it didn't fix many of the things I didn't like with 1e, plus sanitizing the game for Mothers Against D&D was a colossal cop-out. I liked the changes that 3e made to the game, but then they went and added tons of superstructure to the game I DIDN'T like. 

Pathfinder came out with their "fixes" to 3.X but went in the direction of increasing the complexity when I was hoping for decreasing it. I love Paizo as a company, but their rules system just didn't appeal to me. 4e was never a game I could warm up to. It may be an excellent miniatures Skirmish game, but it threw out way too much of the things I liked in ALL previous editions. I do like the rule on critical hits though, so there is that. Castles & Crusades came the closest to "being D&D to me" so that was what I went with. But, since it didn't have the D&D logo on it, it never received much traction in the gaming world. The publisher's habits of poor editing didn't help either.

5E now comes along with a stated goal of creating a simpler, modular core that can be extended with expansions. So far this sounds like a wonderful design philosophy. The designers are also making a huge effort to promote the game in terms that are as inclusive as possible. I absolutely applaud this. 

What they have said gives me more hope that 5e will be the best version of D&D that I have ever laid eyes on, even games that don't have those three symbols on the box. Now when the playtest rules come out I may find myself to be completely wrong but I don't think so. I really think I'll like at least 90% of the game and if they get that close I will be elated. 

When the final rules are published I would love to be playing and running actual D&D again. At least at this point I have hope.


----------



## Savage Wombat

MoxieFu said:


> Where are you getting these words from that you quote me as saying?




You are the one who brought up Appendix N.  That suggests that you have a list of books you consider "D&D Feel".  But the list you gave us - Appendix N - is extremely dated.  All I did was suggest that you include in the discussion some more current materials that you think would receive your "D&D Feel" stamp of approval.

If, on the other hand, your intent is just to troll the thread, then it would not be necessary for you to actually contribute to the discussion.


----------



## Kynn

Okay, so the claim was made that:


> Pick up most fantasy novels and you pretty consistently run into variants on dwarves, elves, orcs, halfings, and gnomes.




I objected, because I believe it's provably true that most fantasy novels don't consist of "dwarves, elves, orcs, halflings, and gnomes" and their variants.

Apparently, that's controversial, as with MoxieFu's response to look at:



MoxieFu said:


> Get a copy of the Dungeon Masters Guide, first edition.
> Turn to Appendix N
> Pick any novel
> Enjoy
> 
> And if anybody is still looking for the "Essence" of D&D? It's here.




Okay, so let's see, I'll pick any novel listed there. Poul Anderson's "Three Hearts and Three Lions is the first one listed. Which of those races exist there? Dwarves and elves perhaps, but orcs and halfings?

The last on the list is Roger Zelazny's "Amber" series. Are there orcs, dwarves, hobbits, elves, and gnomes in Amber as the primary races?

Edgar Rice Burroughs is listed. Did his Pellucidar, Venus, and Mars series feature dwarves, elves, gnomes, and orcs?

H.P. Lovecraft?

R.E. Howard?

Michael Moorcock?

Andre Norton?

Fred Saberhagen?

Jack Vance?

In fact, the vast majority of authors and books listed in Appendix N do *not* have the standard AD&D races in their works. A small minority (including Tolkien) have _subsets_ of the standard AD&D races (e.g., JRRT has no gnomes), but it's far different from saying that if you pick up any Moorcock, Vance, or Howard novel, you'll see dwarves, elves, halflings, gnomes, and orcs.


----------



## Piratecat

*No bickering, folks.*


----------



## MoxieFu

Savage Wombat said:


> You are the one who brought up Appendix N.  That suggests that you have a list of books you consider "D&D Feel".  But the list you gave us - Appendix N - is extremely dated.  All I did was suggest that you include in the discussion some more current materials that you think would receive your "D&D Feel" stamp of approval.
> 
> If, on the other hand, your intent is just to troll the thread, then it would not be necessary for you to actually contribute to the discussion.




I simply suggested a starting point to begin. What you infer is your own choice.

If you are calling me a troll then you need to check the rules of these very discussion boards. There are definite rules here about that.


----------



## MoxieFu

Sorry PC, I saw your post after submitting mine.


----------



## thewok

MoxieFu said:


> And all that wonderful "improvement" in 4e has brought us right where we are today. If all that improvement was so good why are we looking at a new edition of the game in record time? All the changes were NOT for the better and the edition failed. The facts speak for themselves, but you can't hear it if you refuse to listen.



In actuality, D&D has a fairly long lifespan for its editions.

Shadowrun (first released in 1989) is currently in its fourth edition.  Vampire (1991) is in its fourth.  Paranoia (1984) is in its fifth.  MechWarrior (1986) is in its fifth edition.  GURPS (1986) is in its fourth.

Vampire had its first and second editions a year apart.  GURPS released both its first and second editions in 1986, with its third edition released in 1988.

4E's shelf life i's hardly a record low for the industry as a whole, or even for D&D in general (that distinction goes to 3rd Edition, which lasted three years).

This is one of the things I absolutely loathe about the Internet.  There is either "win" or "fail."  There is "OMG the best game evar!!!!11" and "This game is the most vile piece of crap I've ever played!"  There is no in-between on the Internet.  It's an always-on generator of hyperbole, where the only choices are exaltation and damnation.  Trying to maintain the voice of reason makes you a "white knight" to one side and a "hater" to the other.

4E is not perfect, but it's far from a failure.


----------



## Somebloke

MoxieFu said:


> Actually I began playing 1e in 1980. Eventually trying to houserule 1e into something I was satisfied nearly drove me to madness. I was relieved when 2e came out but it didn't fix many of the things I didn't like with 1e, plus sanitizing the game for Mothers Against D&D was a colossal cop-out. I liked the changes that 3e made to the game, but then they went and added tons of superstructure to the game I DIDN'T like.
> 
> Pathfinder came out with their "fixes" to 3.X but went in the direction of increasing the complexity when I was hoping for decreasing it. I love Paizo as a company, but their rules system just didn't appeal to me. 4e was never a game I could warm up to. It may be an excellent miniatures Skirmish game, but it threw out way too much of the things I liked in ALL previous editions. I do like the rule on critical hits though, so there is that. Castles & Crusades came the closest to "being D&D to me" so that was what I went with. But, since it didn't have the D&D logo on it, it never received much traction in the gaming world. The publisher's habits of poor editing didn't help either.
> 
> 5E now comes along with a stated goal of creating a simpler, modular core that can be extended with expansions. So far this sounds like a wonderful design philosophy. The designers are also making a huge effort to promote the game in terms that are as inclusive as possible. I absolutely applaud this.
> 
> What they have said gives me more hope that 5e will be the best version of D&D that I have ever laid eyes on, even games that don't have those three symbols on the box. Now when the playtest rules come out I may find myself to be completely wrong but I don't think so. I really think I'll like at least 90% of the game and if they get that close I will be elated.
> 
> When the final rules are published I would love to be playing and running actual D&D again. At least at this point I have hope.




...you understand that if- hopefully- 5e turns out to have the elegant system you want, then the inclusion of classes and races you can ban right off the bat isn't going to detract from this? I am sorry, but a DM who can't get his players to work with a particular theme or agree to houserules/race or class restrictions to work within his game has issues with his players or his style, not with the options. 

5e is hopefully going to be the simple, elegant, narrative (rather than tactical) friendly system I've been looking for, that addresses the issues with Oe to 4e in one go; but I am not going to use it to run Tolkien: the RPG and me- and a lot of people like me, who may not have even been alive in the eighties and certainly don't want to return there- deserve representation too. We have our own cherished characters, our own TPKs due to stupidity or pushing our luck when we shouldn't have, our own epic finales, our own wow-I-can't-believe he did that-moments- our own times when we touched the soul of DnD, hobbits or no. An edition for all, remember?


----------



## ArmoredSaint

shidaku said:


> You write up all this and then tell us that WE are the ones playing a no-true-scotsman fallacy?  Gimme a break.



No, that was me recognizing that my entire rant is really one big "No True Scotsman" fallacy.  That it is one doesn't particularly bother me since this is largely just a question of differing tastes,


----------



## triqui

Ok, so bassically the OP is saying that because HE doesn't like certain races, they shouldn't be allowed in PHB. 

That's a strong argument, indeed. I'll use it again. I dislike elves, and Legolas-clones. So I vote to keep elves out of the PHB using the same logic: that _I_ don't like them.

My brother dislikes Halflings/hobbits with a passion. So we could keep them out.

My girfriend finds that Dwarves are too ugly, and too dumb. They often are roleplayed like that stupid dwarf in the D&D film, we could keep them out too.

And I have a friend that says that humans are too bland and boring, he dislikes including real world race in a fantasy world.

So we could do a D&D without any race that any single player in the world might feel unconfortable with. Bassically, a game without races.

Well... now I think about it, it wasn't that good of an argument, was it?


----------



## Mattachine

If the new edition is to consolidate editions, then tieflings and dragonborn don't need to be in the PHB, since they only made it into the 4e PHB.  They could be included in the DMG as options, or in a supplement. 

Half-orcs weren't in the 2e PHB, but were in 1e, 3e, and 4e. They should be in.


----------



## Lurks-no-More

As a big Tolkien fan, and someone who's played D&D in various forms for twenty-plus years (he said, smoothly establishing his geek credentials), I _absolutely_ want tieflings and dragonborn both in 5e.

Why? For one reason, they are both quite popular; people have loved tieflings since they appeared in Planescape back in the '90s, and WotC has told us repeatedly that there's been a huge demand for dragon-themed characters. (I have no difficulties believing that there are more dragonborn being played today than there are halflings, even if the former appear only in 4e and the latter are a staple of (A)D&D and Pathfinder!)

For another, they are there as an explicit sign that no, D&D doesn't _have_ to be a retread of the same-old faux-Tolkienian pseudo-European pseudo-Medieval pseudo-fantasy. Tieflings, the cursed and physically warped scions of an ancient empire that made literal deals with the devils, are a perfectly good sword-and-sorcery style race, for one thing. Dragonborn, as the _first ever_ non-stupid, non-ugly, non-evil PHB example of the big, strong warrior race type are another valuable thing to keep.

Overall: yes, I understand 5e is supposed to bring all the lapsed D&D gamers and people hanging onto old editions back into the fold. I doubt WotC can pull that off, but I understand the goal, and support them in their attempt to do so. But at the same time, it would be beyond foolish to deliberately ignore and discard elements from the current and most played edition of D&D - 4e, natch! - without good reason. So far, no one arguing for a very narrow and old-fashioned list of PC races in the core books has presented one, as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

Mattachine said:


> If the new edition is to consolidate editions, then tieflings and dragonborn don't need to be in the PHB, since they only made it into the 4e PHB.



If the new edition is to truly consolidate editions, then they should be in the first PHB.  It's not truly consolidating editions if they don't.  

And it was disastrous for 4e not having Bards, Barbarians, Druids, Sorcerers and Monks or Gnomes and Half-Orcs in the 1st PHB, as many avoided 4e because it didn't have those classes and races, even if they showed up later.  I seem to remember hearing about how many clearly avoided 2e because it didn't have Assassins or Half-Orcs in the PHB, even if both of them did show up later in 2e.

I don't care if the PHB is 320 pages and more than $50, they need to include all if they're going to meet their goal of consolidating editions.


----------



## Mattachine

Fair point, Kobold Avenger.
I was one of those people who didn't go for 2e right away because of the omissions.


----------



## MoonSong

Kobold Avenger said:


> If the new edition is to truly consolidate editions, then they should be in the first PHB.  It's not truly consolidating editions if they don't.
> 
> And it was disastrous for 4e not having Bards, Barbarians, Druids, Sorcerers and Monks or Gnomes and Half-Orcs in the 1st PHB, as many avoided 4e because it didn't have those classes and races, even if they showed up later.  I seem to remember hearing about how many clearly avoided 2e because it didn't have Assassins or Half-Orcs in the PHB, even if both of them did show up later in 2e.
> 
> I don't care if the PHB is 320 pages and more than $50, they need to include all if they're going to meet their goal of consolidating editions.




Exactly! One of the biggest barriers I had when 4e showed up resumed to this:

"We are shifting to 4e"

"Cool, can I convert my Rogue/Druid/Sorcerer/MT?"

"mmm no, multiclassing no longer works that way, and Druid and Sorcerer aren't in the core, neither prestige classes"

"Well then I'll make a new character, a Bard"

"Bards aren't there either"

"A gnome rogue with a lyre then"

"No gnomes either, oh and they removed perform"

"A halfling rogue then"

"Just a warning, rogues work a little different..."

It was bad when it happened to 3.5 players and I don't want it to happen to 4e players either, they were the one who actually stayed, they don't deserve to be put aside by wizards. As such it'd be better if the core included all of the core races for 4e, pluss those that was core in 3.x and got cut from 4e.


----------



## Khaalis

As stated early, I agree that all of the main PHB races of the past, 1E through 4E should be included, if not even have a few of the more popular non-PHB races added as well, such as a proper "big-guy" species whether it be a half-ogre, goliath (or better yet firbolg), etc. There are plenty of very popular non-PHB1 races that could be added to make a wide range of styles from Tolkienesque to Sword-and-Sorcery games.

If they go back to a print layout similar to 1E/3E (a more encyclopedic layout with smaller fonts, wider columns, smaller margins - vs. the more magazine style layouts of 2E/4E) and trimmed the fluff slightly (to add more in a race expansion book) they could easily fit a race to a single or 1.5 pages. Personally, I wouldn't mind a 20 page racial chapter in the PHB.


----------



## Savage Wombat

I don't care for people saying "tieflings go back to 2nd ed".  It's clearly not the same race.  Tiefling's not the coolest-sounding word in the universe, but as a description for a race of planar cast-offs with a hodgepodge of appearances, it's not so bad.

Using it to describe hulking, crimson-skinned horned warriors straight out of heavy-metal album covers is kind of silly.  Can't they have a better name?


----------



## boredgremlin

avin said:


> As there were people, in this very topic, advocating "alien" races should be only in MM because they didn't want to argue with their players about races not allowed in their campaign it's perfectly reasonable to come to the same conclusion after reading your post.
> 
> My point is: I want full race entries for a lot of races, not some half-made entries on Monster Manual, like we had on 3E.




I think there are more important uses of page space then PC race descriptions. Things like a system for creating or customizing your own spells or more feats/powers/ whatever they call the class customization mechanic in 5e.


----------



## underfoot007ct

Savage Wombat said:


> I don't care for people saying "tieflings go back to 2nd ed".  It's clearly not the same race.  Tiefling's not the coolest-sounding word in the universe, but as a description for a race of planar cast-offs with a hodgepodge of appearances, it's not so bad.
> 
> Using it to describe hulking, crimson-skinned horned warriors straight out of heavy-metal album covers is kind of silly.  Can't they have a better name?





If Tieflings are clearly not the same race, maybe you can explain it to us. As for "silly", I think that is in the eye of the beholder. And what is wrong with "Heavy Metal" albums, but now we call them CDs.

Tiefling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Aeolius

Mattachine said:


> I was one of those people who didn't go for 2e right away because of the omissions.



   That was one of my issues with 2e (and 4e), as well.

   Still I can understand those who feel that all PC races from editions 1-4 (no Basic elves as a class) shoudl be represented. After all, I had a player with an alu-demon character in my last 1e game and I have a player with a viletooth lizardman character in my current game.


----------



## boredgremlin

Savage Wombat said:


> I don't care for people saying "tieflings go back to 2nd ed".  It's clearly not the same race.  Tiefling's not the coolest-sounding word in the universe, but as a description for a race of planar cast-offs with a hodgepodge of appearances, it's not so bad.
> 
> Using it to describe hulking, crimson-skinned horned warriors straight out of heavy-metal album covers is kind of silly.  Can't they have a better name?




LOL thats kind of funny. The only teiflings I have ever actually seen played were either the metal artwork kind or the hot seductress with horns kind. 

No one at my table has ever played the moody, outcast type that they are usually described in the books as. I cant honestly say why.


----------



## underfoot007ct

Mattachine said:


> If the new edition is to consolidate editions, then tieflings and dragonborn don't need to be in the PHB, since they only made it into the 4e PHB.  They could be included in the DMG as options, or in a supplement.
> 
> Half-orcs weren't in the 2e PHB, but were in 1e, 3e, and 4e. They should be in.




But if 5E-Next is the edition to unite all the editions, then why omit Dragonborn & Tieflings?


----------



## Klaus

Savage Wombat said:


> I don't care for people saying "tieflings go back to 2nd ed".  It's clearly not the same race.  Tiefling's not the coolest-sounding word in the universe, but as a description for a race of planar cast-offs with a hodgepodge of appearances, it's not so bad.
> 
> Using it to describe hulking, crimson-skinned horned warriors straight out of heavy-metal album covers is kind of silly.  Can't they have a better name?



Humanoids with large horns and tails? There ya go:






3e tiefling by Tony DiTerlizzi


----------



## avin

boredgremlin said:


> I think there are more important uses of page space then PC race descriptions. Things like a system for creating or customizing your own spells or more feats/powers/ whatever they call the class customization mechanic in 5e.




I disagree. Custom powers are a open door to unbalance and a headache for DMs. That space would be better spent with more races. This comes from someone used to Gurps psionics/magic and Mage (storyteller).



underfoot007ct said:


> But if 5E-Next is the edition to unite all the editions, then why omit Dragonborn & Tieflings?




Wotc shouldn't and probably won't.



Klaus said:


> Humanoids with large horns and tails? There ya go:
> 
> 3e tiefling by Tony DiTerlizzi




DiTerlizzi knows stuff... Tieflings MUST go back to this.


----------



## Klaus

avin said:


> DiTerlizzi knows stuff... Tieflings MUST go back to this.




Er... That *is* pretty much the same tiefling as the 4e version, just done by DiTerlizzi, upswept goat horns and tail included.


----------



## avin

Klaus said:


> Er... That *is* pretty much the same tiefling as the 4e version, just done by DiTerlizzi, upswept goat horns and tail included.




It doesn't look the same to me. Not at all. Different horns, starting on forehead, large tail... etc.


----------



## Sunseeker

boredgremlin said:


> No one at my table has ever played the moody, outcast type that they are usually described in the books as. I cant honestly say why.




Because playing a moody, emo, goth-kid who just wants to be loved but is really hated for the evil power deep within him....just isn't fun.


----------



## Savage Wombat

underfoot007ct said:


> If Tieflings are clearly not the same race, maybe you can explain it to us. As for "silly", I think that is in the eye of the beholder. And what is wrong with "Heavy Metal" albums, but now we call them CDs.
> 
> Tiefling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




1.  Your own Wikipedia quote demonstrates that 2-3e Tieflings are one thing, and 4e tieflings another.

2.  I'm not calling the race silly, I'm calling the name Tiefling silly.  The "ling" ending is diminutive in nature, like halfling or dragonling.  It doesn't send the "badass" quality they were looking for.

3.  I didn't say anything was wrong with Heavy Metal albums, now did I?  Do they or do they not look like something from one?

4.  When I attempted to run 4e, I called them Turathi, after the city.  I've even heard a few other EnWorlders use the term.


----------



## kiltedyaksman

In terms of the original post, I would like to see half-orcs. However, if I could trade the half-orc to ensure the tiefling would not appear - I would do so.


----------



## Klaus

avin said:


> It doesn't look the same to me. Not at all. Different horns, starting on forehead, large tail... etc.



Tiefling females have horns of varying shape, and starting at various heights on the forehead. Plus, y'know, artistic styles.


----------



## Sunseeker

Klaus said:


> Tiefling females have horns of varying shape, and starting at various heights on the forehead. Plus, y'know, artistic styles.



Exactly, the style may have changed to a race with more meat to it's own design than the traditional "it's a human that looks like a succubus", I think this has been for the benefit of the whole race.


----------



## Mattachine

Actually, the descriptions of tieflings in earlier editions specifically stated a widely varying appearance--perhaps just red skin, a sulfurous smell, or demonic eyes--able to pass for human in many cases. And some tieflings would look like outright fiends.

Despite the 4e version, tieflings in my games are not connected to some old empire, and can have the same variation in appearance as in earlier editions.


----------



## Sunseeker

Mattachine said:


> Actually, the descriptions of tieflings in earlier editions specifically stated a widely varying appearance--perhaps just red skin, a sulfurous smell, or demonic eyes--able to pass for human in many cases. And some tieflings would look like outright fiends.
> 
> Despite the 4e version, tieflings in my games are not connected to some old empire, and can have the same variation in appearance as in earlier editions.




I know the Forgotten Realms book gave players a lot of variety in how their tieflings could look, and aasamir had a similar selection.  

But hey, that's the glory of your games, players can look however they want without having to be explicitly THOSE tieflings.  I am totally down with customization.


----------



## avin

shidaku said:


> I know the Forgotten Realms book gave players a lot of variety in how their tieflings could look, and aasamir had a similar selection.
> 
> But hey, that's the glory of your games, players can look however they want without having to be explicitly THOSE tieflings.  I am totally down with customization.




It wasn't a FR thing, Planescape tieflings did look different from each other, due to difference heritage, so 4E tieflings came from the same place and killed that idea.


----------



## Sunseeker

avin said:


> It wasn't a FR thing, Planescape tieflings did look different from each other, due to difference heritage, so 4E tieflings came from the same place and killed that idea.




I only referenced FR as I'm not familiar with Planescape.

But I'm still kinda 2 minds about the subject, I allow my players a wide berth of vanity customization, but I like the idea that there is a standard "look" for a species.


----------



## Klaus

Maybe the 4e tieflings were the origin of the term that now applies to the varied "fiend-descended" mortals of the cosmos. That way you can have your devil-cake and eat it, too!


----------



## underfoot007ct

Savage Wombat said:


> 1.  Your own Wikipedia quote demonstrates that 2-3e Tieflings are one thing, and 4e tieflings another.
> 
> 2.  I'm not calling the race silly, I'm calling the name Tiefling silly.  The "ling" ending is diminutive in nature, like halfling or dragonling.  It doesn't send the "badass" quality they were looking for.
> 
> 3.  I didn't say anything was wrong with Heavy Metal albums, now did I?  Do they or do they not look like something from one?
> 
> 4.  When I attempted to run 4e, I called them Turathi, after the city.  I've even heard a few other EnWorlders use the term.




4E Tieflng god a small descriptive change, I think the spirit is still the same. What differences do you consider major ?

Yes, I agree that Tiefling name could be tougher sounding, more "badass". 

I played a Tiefling pre 4E, and we just called fellow Tieflings "Tainted"  which sounded better. I doubt any heavy metal band will ever name themselves TIEFLING ?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UqFPujRZWo&feature=like-suggest]D&D 4th Edition: Tiefling & the Gnome - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## FitzTheRuke

I can't believe people complain that Tieflings got "changed" because some art shows them with bigger horns and tails.

Imagine these humans:

Elderly Australian Aborigine Woman
Young Japanese Girl
Middle-aged Finnish Man
Adult Nigerian Man

These are HUMANS.  

Our Tieflings ought to be able to have some variety, shouldn't they?  

We're supposed to have imaginations, us gamers.


----------



## Hassassin

underfoot007ct said:


> 4E Tieflng god a small descriptive change, I think the spirit is still the same. What differences do you consider major ?




Appearance didn't change much but they changed from various unconnected descendants of fiends to a people who made a pact with devils.


----------



## Klaus

Hassassin said:


> Appearance didn't change much but they changed from various unconnected descendants of fiends to a people who made a pact with devils.



Which has zero effect on a campaign without Bael Turath. The fiery theme of the tieflings can be attributed to any number of Lower Planes, and a simple notation changes it to cold (for Caina) or thunder (for Pandemonium), for instance.


----------



## hikaizer

I wonder if part of the problem has been that up until 4E that Players Handbooks were written in mind of a specific default setting. 3E was clearly Greyhawk given its deity listing and 2E was less obviously so. 4E on the other hand didn't really feel much like it was really developed formally. We got hints from various adventure modules but there wasn't really any proper setting. Furthermore the theme and feel (at least to me) seemed to shift and change from the first, to the second and then unto the third Players Handbook.

So if the 5E one has some kind of basic setting in it, then the races in the core rules should reflect that. Having a basic character creation or race section with limited options, and then another chapter or section with more advanced options would seem logical and cater to both groups in the discussion.

My personal opinion is that as long as I can have access to those extra races in the _core package_ I'm not that fussed whether it's in the core PHB, whether that be all encompassing or split into a "Basic" and "Advanced" set, or if it's in a separate book or not. I just want them to be present in the core package.

Also I think perhaps Dragonborn and Tieflings should be separated a little from the other core races. They've got their fans from 4E to be sure, but they're the new kids on the block as far as the whole history of DnD goes. Perhaps making an optional section, including them there and noting that they can fit in, or be excluded at the GM's discretion from the default setting (if it's even as developed as the Points of Light one).

On a side note, if the Points of Light setting did get a better write up than the promo material and small notes in various 4E materials I'd like to know where to find it!


----------



## Ratinyourwalls

ArmoredSaint said:


> Few things irritate me more than spending hours and hours preparing a plot plot outline in a particular setting in which what's available has already been defined beforehand, only to set it before the players and have *That One Guy* throw a tantrum because he can't make his Tainted Half-Dragonborn/Half-Shifter FactotumNinjaSorcerer concept work within the parameters of the campaign.
> 
> And it's always _*That One Guy*_ who does it.  Every group has one--the guy who gets his jollies from playing nothing but oddball character concepts and rebelling against anything he defines as "too Normal."  It's like he's going through some sort of personal identity crisis and has this driving psychological need to set himself apart and constantly remind everyone around him that he's not just another sheep in the flock like they are.  He demands the spotlight, often in social situations within the story, and gets off on all the drama that surrounds NPCs being revolted by his unusual and generally monstrous PC, detracting from the fun of everyone else around the table, who probably just want to get on with the campaign's storyline and make some progress towards achieving their goal.  He just wants the whole campaign to be about everybody celebrating his diversity.
> 
> Tell him "No," or "You can't do that," or "That's not available," and he flies off the handle, wanting to do it all the more now because he was told that he can't, adding the appeal of rebellion to the appeal of the Weird.
> 
> I don't get this guy at all.  To him, D&D is something very different than it is to me.  He hates anything and everything old and traditional; if it's not cutting-edge and totally whacked-out Strange, it can't hold his interest.  What made him this way?  What was his early experience with the game like?  What turned him off so much on the Things That Make D&D What It Is?





I think your problem is that you tell your players "NO!!!!" when you should be telling them "Yes but..."


----------



## boredgremlin

avin said:


> I disagree. Custom powers are a open door to unbalance and a headache for DMs. That space would be better spent with more races. This comes from someone used to Gurps psionics/magic and Mage (storyteller).




I thought MAGE was frigging awesome personally and not a headache at all. 

And anyway the solution for that problem is advice on how to be a better DM, not stifling creativity in favor a bunch of dumb races that could just be MM entries. And anyway I said to include a mathematical system for how to create those things so that they stay balanced.


----------



## Tovec

FitzTheRuke said:


> I can't believe people complain that Tieflings got "changed" because some art shows them with bigger horns and tails.
> 
> Imagine these humans:
> 
> Elderly Australian Aborigine Woman
> Young Japanese Girl
> Middle-aged Finnish Man
> Adult Nigerian Man
> 
> These are HUMANS.
> 
> Our Tieflings ought to be able to have some variety, shouldn't they?
> 
> We're supposed to have imaginations, us gamers.




Not that I am one of these people complaining but...
They went from ALL looking vaguely like adult nigerian men to looking like young japanese girls. It wasn't that some of them started looking a certain way, it was that they ALL started to look this way and there was no longer any that represented the old look anymore. Indeed what little fluff we did get seemed to suggest that ALL "japanese/black" people were from this one destroyed country and that was hundreds of years ago.

Excuse me if this point has been made. I was just dropping through.


----------



## avin

boredgremlin said:


> I thought MAGE was frigging awesome personally and not a headache at all.




Mage is frigging awesome, no doubt about it.

But that magic system was made for that, even so, in the wrong hands, unbalance and QQ happens. Mage is a game for, well, Mages, everybody has spells. GURPS is so lethal that a knife can kill easily, providing some balance for melee classes.

D&D is a game where melee suffers. Providing freedom of magic creation would open a can of worms and make non caster classes look even more like sidekicks of Wizards, Clerics, etc. Unless you allow Fighters using "creative" ways to kill.

As for "dumb" races, well, include halfling and gnomes on that.


----------



## avin

FitzTheRuke said:


> I can't believe people complain that Tieflings got "changed" because some art shows them with bigger horns and tails.
> 
> Imagine these humans:
> 
> Elderly Australian Aborigine Woman
> Young Japanese Girl
> Middle-aged Finnish Man
> Adult Nigerian Man
> 
> These are HUMANS.
> 
> Our Tieflings ought to be able to have some variety, shouldn't they?
> 
> We're supposed to have imaginations, us gamers.




On AD&D2E not every Tiefling has horns, not every tiefling has a tail... some have a different scent, some have bizarre eyes, some have claws instead of hands... 

You described humans breeding humans.
AD&D Tieflings were a cross between humans and some sort of devil.
A 4E tiefling is a race where everybody has a tail and a horn... there's a huge difference between 2E and 4E.


----------



## Hassassin

Klaus said:


> Which has zero effect on a campaign without Bael Turath. The fiery theme of the tieflings can be attributed to any number of Lower Planes, and a simple notation changes it to cold (for Caina) or thunder (for Pandemonium), for instance.




They did feel the need to retcon them in at least FR.

In 3e they "in most ways appear completely human" and "rarely form communities" "because of their rarity and varied backgrounds" while in 4e they "cannot escape the skin and physical features that indicate [their] heritage" and while their settlements are said to be uncommon that is because they are "rarely content to lead provincial lives" and there are large sub-populations in some areas.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

In 2e in the Planewalker's Guide they had a table you could roll for their appearances.  They also had a table for special abilities.  While I don't think it would be a good idea to have a table of random abilities for their first appearance in any edition.  Rolling a table for features from the sidebar for their appearance or not, and just picking them would be the ideal way to go.

After all they want to bring tables you can roll stuff for back in the new edition.  And even if the table is something like: 35-45 horns, 45-55 tail,
it'll have smaller things like 72-75 six fingers, 76-78 vestigial wings, 79-81 menacing shadow and other more interesting features.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

avin said:


> On AD&D2E not every Tiefling has horns, not every tiefling has a tail... some have a different scent, some have bizarre eyes, some have claws instead of hands...
> 
> You described humans breeding humans.
> AD&D Tieflings were a cross between humans and some sort of devil.
> A 4E tiefling is a race where everybody has a tail and a horn... there's a huge difference between 2E and 4E.




My point was more along the lines of : YOUR Tiefling does not need to match their art, (which are drawings of often named characters belonging to WotC staffers or playtesters) and can look like whatever YOU want them to, so why bother caring how they draw them?

Even if you want to use stock-art for your character sheet, you can still use a 3e Tiefling on your 4e character sheet.

Heck, *I* played a Tiefling that looked like a large bearded human (no horns, no tail, looked more like a typical Barbarian) who's eyes went red when he got mad and he breathed fire.

Never bothered me that other people's Tiefling's (Like Shelly's) looked different.


----------



## boredgremlin

avin said:


> Mage is frigging awesome, no doubt about it.
> 
> But that magic system was made for that, even so, in the wrong hands, unbalance and QQ happens. Mage is a game for, well, Mages, everybody has spells. GURPS is so lethal that a knife can kill easily, providing some balance for melee classes.
> 
> D&D is a game where melee suffers. Providing freedom of magic creation would open a can of worms and make non caster classes look even more like sidekicks of Wizards, Clerics, etc. Unless you allow Fighters using "creative" ways to kill.
> 
> As for "dumb" races, well, include halfling and gnomes on that.




Shrug, just cut HP so that warriors kill easily as well. Make everything gritty and everyone is pretty much equal.


----------



## Grimmjow

as long as they show up i don't mind if they rant in the first one


----------



## prosfilaes

I'm all for tieflings and half-orcs in the main books, though I think half-orcs should be called orcs. (A quick and dirty solution for dealing with preexisting half-orcs is to say they take after one side or the other close enough to use that racial template.)

As for dragonborn ... I recall a review of fantasy heartbreakers that most of the new ones had some sort of dragonborn like PC race. Between this popular support, and the fact that we don't want to alienate the 4E players, why not.


----------



## thewok

prosfilaes said:


> I'm all for tieflings and half-orcs in the main books, though I think half-orcs should be called orcs. (A quick and dirty solution for dealing with preexisting half-orcs is to say they take after one side or the other close enough to use that racial template.)



I actually did this in my homebrew campaign world.  The half-orc stats are use for a race called "orcs," who are your standard barbarian-type tribal society.  The orcs that are monsters are those who worship Gruumsh after his turn to evil.

It's kind of a Warcraft thing, actually.  Orcs are "peaceful," in that they don't really go after new land all the time.  Orc monsters are warlike, and they attack without provocation.


----------



## Gaming Tonic

I ran a poll on my website and was surprised by the results.  It was what race besides human, elf, dwarf, and halfling would you have in the next edition.  I would have included gnome and half-orc because those have had some traction over the years.  Nothing besides the classic races added to the game did fairly well. Check out the results yourself. http://gamingtonic.com/blog/2012/03...ged-and-tiefling-should-be-in-5th-edition-dd/


----------



## Klaus

Gaming Tonic said:


> I ran a poll on my website and was surprised by the results.  It was what race besides human, elf, dwarf, and halfling would you have in the next edition.  I would have included gnome and half-orc because those have had some traction over the years.  Nothing besides the classic races added to the game did fairly well. Check out the results yourself. Poll Results In : Warforged and Tiefling Should Be In 5th Edition D&D  Gaming Tonic



Interesting results.

Quick trivia: in the 1e Fiend Folio, kenku weren't raven-headed, but rather hawk-headed.


----------

