Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Von_Harbringer 06-22-07, 01:52 AM	I always wonder why players need to play the weirdest character race. I am just fine with playing core races and occasional aasimar or drow. But fiendish half-red dragon fire giant? Come on isn't the basics good enough? Myself I feel it's a stretch to allow githzerai or githyanki.
Tiarn 06-22-07, 01:55 AM	I believe the phrase "to each his own" sums this up best. Some people are more than happy playing nothing but elves, dwarves, halflings, etc. every game for as long as they game. Some people aren't. Some like more variety. There isn't anything wrong with playing either way. It's all a question of personal tastes.
key 06-22-07, 02:01 AM	Some people are more than happy playing nothing but elves :blush:
Von_Harbringer 06-22-07, 02:03 AM	Yes, what just gets me is if the DM said I only allow humans the PCs want to play halflings or elves. The DM says ok. Then they want to play drow and ogres. The DM says ok. Then they want to play troll half-dragons. The DM says ok. Then they want to play gun-slinging alien-cyborgs. All because everybody else is playing one. So they want to be the first one on the block to play it.
AAB 06-22-07, 02:04 AM	i'm a dwarf man, myself. about 75 percent of the time, if i had to guess.
Archangel62 06-22-07, 02:10 AM	For me, dwarves and humans mostly with the occaisional half-orc, dragonborn, spellscale thrown in for color.
Tiarn 06-22-07, 02:29 AM	Yes, what just gets me is if the DM said I only allow humans the PCs want to play halflings or elves. The DM says ok. Then they want to play drow and ogres. The DM says ok. Then they want to play troll half-dragons. The DM says ok. Then they want to play gun-slinging alien-cyborgs. All because everybody else is playing one. So they want to be the first one on the block to play it. That sounds like a DM who can't enforce his/her own rulings. If the DM truly wants only standard races (you say humans, but why limit a fantasy game to a single race? What world are you playing in?) then he/she should say "no" when the players ask to play something else. But also remember, this isn't just the DM's game. The players are there to have fun, too. If the DM puts too many limitations on the game that the players find unsatisfactory they're likely to find a different DM. I suggest communication, find out why these players want to play the half-troll demonic elf. Perhaps they have an interesting background or concept to go along with it. If it's just for the statistics they're likely to get bored with it soon, anyway (especially when the villagers of every town attempt to kill them on sight, they are a monster) but if they have compelling reasons for the race/templates they've chosen then perhaps a little understanding and compromise should come from both sides. ((As a side-note, my characters are about 50% humans. The other half is a variety, including but not limited to: elan, half-elves, thri-kreen, half-dragons, vampires, and a werewolf or two. Now that I think about it I've only played a single dwarf and never an elf. Odd.))
Yadot 06-22-07, 02:37 AM	For me it's that most of the core races are like human but... Elves are like Humans but graceful and nature-loving; Dwares are like Humans but stout and obsessed with metal-working; Half-Orcs are like Humans but slow and outcasts. Whereas I know what the Dromite is.
Von_Harbringer 06-22-07, 02:40 AM	The humans only thing I got from a rather old school gamer. He said when he played humans were the only race you could play and an elf was considered a class. So in those days it was a godsend if you got the stats that you could play an elf class. I am glad I wasn't playing back then or I would be complaining even more. I have no objections to variety. But every time a new book comes out its another headache for the DM because of some new variant that he needs to keep track of. My usual rule is if I don't personally own it then its not allowed.
Wharin 06-22-07, 02:46 AM	Well, i half think your own title to the question thread answers about half of it. You pose the question: what is wrong with core races and sub-races? I suppose I could pose the question: what is wrong with purely the PHB races? And the next person down the line could say: What is wrong with just playing a normal human? And the next person could say: What is wrong with just playing human commoners and experts; why all this need for magic and junk? And so on, and so on and so on... Ultimately it comes down to one word: banality. People are unsuccessfully fulfilled with the "mundane" choices of what's offtered to them. "Everyone plays a human... hell, everyone IS a human", "I am so sick and tired of playing a regular elf; surely there is a cool subrace i could play one of!" "Dammit, I am tired of all these regular races, I wanna play a tauric elf-deer combo!" And eventually this might lead to increasingly more templates, substitute class levels, PrC's out the wazzoo, until it gets to a point where the people around you (and probably yourself, as well) can just shout "Enough!" Ultimately people will eventually reach a point in their gaming where "getting back to the basics" is actually a unique moment in his career again. They might even just play a human, of all things. And eventually, he'll get bored of that, and wish to play something increasingly exotic until, again, he's back to the basics. And without wishing to sound like i absolutely know everything about everyone, I bet this happens to most, if not all, gamers. Sure, the upper limit might be more tame for some than others, and some might go through this loop more rapidly than others, but I am almost positive it happens to all of us. It just comes down to timing. You might be meeting someone on a heavy upswing in "exoticness" while you are still low on that chart. A month, year, few years from now, you might just be that person as well.
scienceman47 06-22-07, 02:48 AM	Ummm, are you defending a DM at home, or are you a harrowed DM yourself or what? What compelled you to make a thread bemoaning the sorry state of people playing abnormal things?
Von_Harbringer 06-22-07, 03:04 AM	Ummm, are you defending a DM at home, or are you a harrowed DM yourself or what? What compelled you to make a thread bemoaning the sorry state of people playing abnormal things? Little of both I am afraid. I had a DM that allowed almost anything under the sun. When I start DMing the players expected the same. I didn't have every book, so that is why I made that rule because they would say well if I bring the book isn't that good enough. That was awhile ago but I see it today when I play 3rd. For a team management class in college we were given to design an adventure for d20. Some of the ideas for adventures, the one that got to me was a rip-off of Final Fantasy and Diablo II. The idea I had was more of a low-level adventure based on the frontier lands. They were to investigate a calamity (meteor) and assure the barbarians that the town wasn't responsible. The end of the adventure they got enough adamanitine to each create a weapon or sell for 1500 gp.
caeruleus 06-22-07, 03:04 AM	(you say humans, but why limit a fantasy game to a single race? What world are you playing in?) There are plenty of great fantasy worlds with only a single race. Having exotic races isn't the sole criterion, nor even a necessary one, of fantasy. There's much more to the genre. I tend to play humans mostly. That's just my own preference. But I've also played other races (I even played a pixie once), especially when it helps with the character concept I have in mind.
skywyze 06-22-07, 03:23 AM	I *always* play Gray Elves. I used to try out various races etc, but I've settled on them as my favorite. I don't care if I'm playing a barbarian, fighter, wizard or rogue, I ALWAYS play the same race. And if my DM wouldn't allow it, I have to admit I'd be disappointed. Maybe that's why DMs allow these races - they don't want to disappoint the players by limiting their choices.
Mentar 06-22-07, 03:58 AM	In some cases these alternate monstrous races are simply a player's attempt to overpower the rest of the characters, or a way for the player to get attention. When I play monstrous characters I tend to either have an idea in advance or the party captures a humanoid monster after one of my characters die. The main reason I will play monsters (goblin usually) is just for that role playing experience. "How will my character get along in an area that hates his kind?" It's a chance to use diplomacy, disguise, and other skills. As well as testing the player's role playing ability. As for what's wrong with the core races and sub-races, nothing is wrong with the core races. Some sub-races, on the other hand, just don't seem too well thought out.
Sleepwalker13666 06-22-07, 04:10 AM	Well, i half think your own title to the question thread answers about half of it. You pose the question: what is wrong with core races and sub-races? I suppose I could pose the question: what is wrong with purely the PHB races? And the next person down the line could say: What is wrong with just playing a normal human? And the next person could say: What is wrong with just playing human commoners and experts; why all this need for magic and junk? And so on, and so on and so on... Ultimately it comes down to one word: banality. People are unsuccessfully fulfilled with the "mundane" choices of what's offtered to them. "Everyone plays a human... hell, everyone IS a human", "I am so sick and tired of playing a regular elf; surely there is a cool subrace i could play one of!" "Dammit, I am tired of all these regular races, I wanna play a tauric elf-deer combo!" And eventually this might lead to increasingly more templates, substitute class levels, PrC's out the wazzoo, until it gets to a point where the people around you (and probably yourself, as well) can just shout "Enough!" Ultimately people will eventually reach a point in their gaming where "getting back to the basics" is actually a unique moment in his career again. They might even just play a human, of all things. And eventually, he'll get bored of that, and wish to play something increasingly exotic until, again, he's back to the basics. And without wishing to sound like i absolutely know everything about everyone, I bet this happens to most, if not all, gamers. Sure, the upper limit might be more tame for some than others, and some might go through this loop more rapidly than others, but I am almost positive it happens to all of us. It just comes down to timing. You might be meeting someone on a heavy upswing in "exoticness" while you are still low on that chart. A month, year, few years from now, you might just be that person as well. This basically sums up what i was going to say. The game i run is a homebrew world which few (about 2) of the core races/sub-races actually exist, everything else is of my design. While the majority of the time my group is happy with this, every once in awhile I get a request for something that normally wouldn't be in my game. Being a kind Dm I try to work with them, but some things just won't happen, like gnomes ands kender.
zae 06-22-07, 09:50 AM	I think I've just about reached the starting point of the cycle again. When I started, I was really big on lizardmen. No idea why, I think I saw a picture and decided "YES". This was in 2Ed, so I just basically made a "+2 Con, -2 Str" variant of human. When I started on 3rd edition, I played humans, but I honestly wanted to be something different. Something memorable. Note that I'm not old-school, I don't remember the good old days when everything was balanced and the rules made more sense and everything. I started playing 2Ed when 3rd edition was out, heck, 3.5 was probably looming overhead. I mostly got the DM to work everything out (online game, much easier). Now, recently I managed to buy a copy of the Planescape Monstrous Compendium Appenix, and it seemed that Asimar and Tieflings were the new, rare, special race for Planescape. The ones that the DMs and writers sort of hoped one or two players would choose, to add to the Planescape feel. Now days? They're in the SRD. They're covered in certain supplements with racial options. They're just an assumed part of any setting, and even the flavour has made them less exotic (especially the Tiefling, originally a race of unknown origins, now a fiendish descendant). So now, in order to do what those two used to do, you do just about need to play a full Fiend or Celestial (I pity you too, because you get slapped with such a huge Level Adjustment). I went through the cycle - half dragons for quite a while, playing a few actual celestials and a fiend, a mind flayer... And now I've been thinking of a way to make, for one setting, half-elves the exotic race, and actual elves a really rare thing, generally too out of it to care about adventuring. It'd involve adding a bunch of sub-humans to help add racial variety to the cast, but they would basically be background templates - "You were raised as a noble, you gain blah and blah", not runes floating around the head. Now, I'm not doing it to strike back and severely limit things, but just to see if one can do it - if the setting info can change the perceptions so that a half-elf is strange and cool.
runestar 06-22-07, 10:03 AM	Nothing. That is as much a loaded question as you get.
Sunic_Flames 06-22-07, 10:11 AM	I always wonder why players need to play the weirdest character race. I am just fine with playing core races and occasional aasimar or drow. But fiendish half-red dragon fire giant? Come on isn't the basics good enough? Myself I feel it's a stretch to allow githzerai or githyanki. Wrong with is too strong a word. Me personally, I don't like playing the core races much and never have. All of them except human come off wrong to me, and human is well... bland. Making the only reasons to play it in my mind mechanical (extra feat...). So I play exotic stuff, but not half dragon fiendish fire giant level exotic stuff, or anywhere close to this (that is a horribly sub optimal character by the way, due to massive LAs). What others do character wise is their decision.
zelf_gale 06-22-07, 12:32 PM	I have to admit I dislike players having almost anything with a template. I'm also not a fan of creatures with high level adjustments or racial hit dice, unless the have a monster class progression. I'm more accepting of creatures with no racial hit dice and only a +1 level adjustment. In my experience, templates and monstrous races detract from role playing by hogging spotlight time whenever the characters enter a new area. Characters with these traits are often better suited to campaigns where the particular races presence is hand waved due to generalized acceptance of a race by the public or overall abnormal amounts of diversity. Mechanically, I also do not find these races as well balanced as Core races. Most of them are underpowered, while a few break game balance by providing numerous combat advantages while assuming that role playing disadvantages will balance them out. Your mileage may vary, but I always try to encourage my players to continue trying out new core combinations before moving on to the more bizarre. I mean how many of you really have made a gnome fighter, a dwarf sorcerer, a half-orc bard, a half-elf monk, a halfling ranger, and an elf barbarian lately?
DreamerInsane 06-22-07, 02:48 PM	For me, I don't know. I don't like stuff with ten thousand templates - that's just ten different kinds of wrong. I'll put my case this way: That I like Humans and Clerics doesn't mean I like Human Clerics. I like Human Crusaders and Gray Orc Clerics instead. And LA is ten kinds of wrong, too, but I'm biased. Half the PC races I like have a +1 LA.
zae 06-22-07, 09:17 PM	In my experience, templates and monstrous races detract from role playing by hogging spotlight time whenever the characters enter a new area. Characters with these traits are often better suited to campaigns where the particular races presence is hand waved due to generalized acceptance of a race by the public or overall abnormal amounts of diversity. I have the feeling that one of the reasons people enjoy playing the exotic is for the special attention. The way people react when a dragon/awakened dire weasel/beholder/pseudonatural half-celestial troll walks into town. Aside from those that delude themselves into thinking they'll be more powerful, seeing as the Level Adjustment more than makes up for any benefits. Twice over. And then some. Most of them probably want the special reaction. Hence, if you say "Well, George, you always wanted to play a half-dragon, this campaign is set in a city filled with half-dragons! Good news!" they'll then say "Firstly, my name isn't George, and secondly, can I be a half-dragon polar bear?" And for the record, with the exception of immense cities that would actually have high level militia and extraplanar towns where everyone is high enough level/CR to survive fiendish incursion every Tuesday, a monstrous PC seriously isn't going to get mobbed. Why? Because each peasant individually understands that they'll be killed. The problem with "If we all work together, some of us will die but we'll bring it down in the end!" is the "some of us will die" part. Even the guards, who hitherto that point have had to deal with bandits and wolves, will understand concepts such as "It has arms as big as I am and could stuff three of me into its mouth." That being said, the townfolk might run in terror and bolt up the doors, thus ruining the prospect of trade, so there is that problem. Heheh, reminds me of a conversation In had with a friend, which was designed to explain why commoners just mind their own business or run away, but turned into "commoners are stupid country bumpkins." They see a troll: Oo'ar, oo'ar, that thar be a troll. *runs away* They see an ogre: Oo'ar, oo'ar, that thar be a troll *runs away, never to learn the difference between trolls and ogres* They see a medusa: Oo'ar, oo'ar, that thar be a med-
Karish 06-22-07, 09:24 PM	I'm a human, tiefling, grey elf, and human with a demon/devil bloodline type of person, myself.
WolfHati 06-23-07, 01:21 AM	I mainly like to play humans or monstrous races, demi-humans never seemed that interesting to me. I suppose I play monstrous race because I want to play something different--not necessarily to draw attention and stand out, my characters aren't flashy and certainly don't upstage people--but as much as I dislike to admit it, I identify with a character that is fundamentally different from the mainstream society or civilization. That's not to say that I like the misunderstood loner outcast archetype, that's something that seems overpretentious to me, but characters that are because of their nature somehow different from society at large I like to play. Of course the human paladin/wise wizard/veteran fighter, defender of the weak also is quite enjoyable.
dungeoneerphil 06-23-07, 01:40 AM	I tend to stick with the core books, myself, and prefer playing human / half-human / mostly human characters. The occasional new race for variety is all well and good, but I can't help but feel there's a tendency for worlds to get overcrowded with intelligent playable species to the point where it gets too difficult for me to suspend disbelief. zae raises a good point about playing esoteric races as a way of seeking attention. I'll put on my frustrated DM hat, though, and chime in with another possible cause: the player brings along a splatbook, and having paid twenty quid for it, naturally he or she's going to want to use all that new material at once. One player I had was notorious for that. Give him half a dozen sourcebooks and he'd know exactly what combination of feats etc he wanted. The look on his face when I had him choose his initial stuff from the PHB was priceless. :evillaugh
obsidianprism 06-23-07, 04:01 AM	Yes, what just gets me is if the DM said I only allow humans the PCs want to play halflings or elves. The DM says ok. Then they want to play drow and ogres. The DM says ok. Then they want to play troll half-dragons. The DM says ok. Then they want to play gun-slinging alien-cyborgs. All because everybody else is playing one. So they want to be the first one on the block to play it. LOL. This happened once when a DM said anything goes for races, it was supposed to be a "monstrous" campaign, started with a Bugbear fighter, next guy wanted a Thri-Kreen ranger, then the Ogre barbarian, then the Half-dragon sorc... I played a dwarf cleric (I wanted the bonuses against the bugbear and ogre in case they got on my nerves).
Orion Polaris 06-23-07, 04:05 AM	It might have something to do with the fact that the core races are horribly balanced/bland. That's okay though because core classes are ten times worse.
cato 06-23-07, 04:14 AM	When I first started dnd, I was really inclined to play various other races, started with elves and went through various faces. Now I find I get the more fun out of playing a human , I feel i can identify with the character more and thus immerse myself more in the adventure and situation, rather than trying to think what an elf, gnome would do/think. Someone said the phb races are humans with personality traits, sounds reasonable if you read the description but then again if that is so what would be the difference between playing a short thin human and a halfling etc.. So I would like to think that the other races transcend the boundaries of various human personalities.
Razieliffied 06-23-07, 04:50 AM	Firstly, there is nothing truly 'wrong' with the players handbook races [even if half elves and half orcs can leave something to be desired on occasion], I play them. However, I have played them for years, and when given the option to play something a little more 'out there' then I tend to jump on the chance. After all, this is fantasy and I roleplay a human 24/7 as it is, why shouldn't I try my hand at adventuring as Thrakka the orcish ranger? I enjoy the different stats as much as I do the different opportunities for roleplaying and adventuring. People react differently to a troll then they do a gnome, and it's so much fun working within a troll's intelligence and dialogue to get across the concept to the townsfolk that your looking for work, not here to raid and pillage. I also allow any race with like-human intelligence an established place in my campaign worlds. Thus orcs and goblinouds build towns and fortresses on their own land, establish trade rights and build up diplomatic alliances. Yuan-ti control vast aztec style empires across the ocean, even kobolds build fortress-cities beneath the earth and force other races to trade rather then make war. All in all, some people simply find it more interesting to not play a human.
Neutronium_Dragon 06-23-07, 05:55 AM	There is also the fact that the fantasy genre, and the fantasy gaming genre, have expanded far beyond the Tolkienesque origins of the PHB races being portrayed as "the" standard races. As a result, many people no longer feel beholden to keeping those PHB races as the only ones to play. This includes the standard D&D portrayal of many of those races. Orcs are one example: Not only has Eberron (an official D&D setting) portrayed them in a very different fashion than the D&D generic setting and monster manual, but looking outside of D&D you see entirely different portrayals of orcs in games like The Elder Scrolls or Warcraft. Just look at the number of threads which regularly pop up here about adapting various races from other games (pen and paper or computer-based) to D&D and you'll get some idea of why the PHB races, and their particulars, have fallen off their once-lofty perch in the minds of many gamers. Which isn't to say that there's anything wrong with them - just that they're no longer the only game(ing) in town.
AkumaDaimyo 06-23-07, 06:30 AM	Someone could say though, what's wrong with allowing things outside of the PHB races and classes just as easily? I like Tieflings and Catfolk, Drow and some others as well as some standard PHB races. I don't really go for anything weird or uberpowerfull unless it fits but I usally don't like monty haul games anyway. However I do dislike peopel who never ever use anything but the PHB and core books. I find that boring as hell to me. So yeah, to each his own pretty much. I still make fun of things I really don't like but I can't stop them from playing that way. *shrug*
Polaris 06-23-07, 06:58 AM	I always wonder why players need to play the weirdest character race. I am just fine with playing core races and occasional aasimar or drow. But fiendish half-red dragon fire giant? Come on isn't the basics good enough? Myself I feel it's a stretch to allow githzerai or githyanki. I've run into this phenoema both as a player and a DM. I've identified three interconnected reasons for it (some of which have already been covered). 1. Attention. The weirdo-hybrid race has to be justifed with a weirdo backstory and is guaranteed to be the center of attention of the gaming session (or at least the local in which the PCs inhabit). I find this obnoxious both as a player and a DM because it unfairly detracts from other players who might have just as interesting characters albeit perhaps with more conventional races. In fact I'd go so far as to call this laziness. It's easy to come up with a wierdo race combination (if the DM permits of course) and call oneself unique. It's a lot harder to come up with a unique and interesting human fighter or rogue (for example), but IMX it can not only be done, but is often just as (if not more) rewarding. 2. Boredom. This reason is (again IMX) actually pretty closely interwined with reason number one, but less problematic IMHO. In short the player in question has gotten bored with the standard races and/or classes (it happens in both) and wants to try something new. I find that coming up with an interesting background or allowing a non-standard class (or occasionally even template) can usually solve the problem without allowing OTT "wierdo" races. 3. "Gaming" the system. This is one reason that IMHO hasn't really been touched on, but it's important. A lot of non-standard races have either been poorly playtested or not really playtested at all....and a lot of the LAs given are at best guesses based on perhaps a session or two of playtesting. More often than not the non-standard or "wierdo" race is weaker than it's core equivalent, but there are all too often interesting and dangerous exceptions or even game-breaking loopholes. This is particularly true IMHO with the more recent races because of power-creep. The LA+1 race that was published this past year, probably would have been at least LA+2 if not more when 3.5 was published. In short if a race sounds "too good to be true" and a player wants it, it probably is....and that's reason enough to disallow it. -Polaris
Neutronium_Dragon 06-23-07, 07:39 AM	> This is particularly true IMHO with the more recent races because of > power-creep. The LA+1 race that was published this past year, probably > would have been at least LA+2 if not more when 3.5 was published. I think that's less an issue of power creep and more an issue of not being so enormously overconservative in costing the abilities, many of which are far less significant in practice than they were originally theorized to be.
Polaris 06-23-07, 07:43 AM	> This is particularly true IMHO with the more recent races because of > power-creep. The LA+1 race that was published this past year, probably > would have been at least LA+2 if not more when 3.5 was published. I think that's less an issue of power creep and more an issue of not being so enormously overconservative in costing the abilities, many of which are far less significant in practice than they were originally theorized to be. Call it what you like, but it's still power-creep and there is still a sub-species of player that will try to take advantage (and he's more common than one might think). The other players shouldn't feel like chumps for picking a vanilla human or dwarf (for example) and it's up to the DM to make sure this doesn't happen. -Polaris Edit: The issue isn't whether or not the race is actually overpowered or not. The issue is one of perception. A classic example of that are the Dark Elves. Early on in 3.0/3.5 they were tremendously popular because they were grossly overpowered in 1E and 2E. Now even though they look even better at first glance, they kind of suck mechanically....but it took years to figure that out. My comment was about the mentality of the player type in question rather than the "odd" or "weirdo" race.
Ecalsneerg 06-23-07, 07:50 AM	I just pick races with no LA (I think the only LA race to tempt me is Dromite. Bugs galore!) and good fun options within the campaign. Fr example, in our current campaign, one human sub-race has access to Infernally-tainted feats which allow mutations like poisoned tail stingers, fear-causing devil eyes and big tearing claws. Now, they may be a bit of a waste of feats (it takes one feat for the very basic version of it, and a second to upgrade your tail to poisoned and fangs to big huge fangs, but they are fun. And fun races are what will always swing the decision for me. While I'll play Infernally-tainted humans, Kobolds and even Halfings, I won't play generic Humans unless the campaign only allows them for some reason. It all boils down to having a laugh with it.
Neutronium_Dragon 06-23-07, 08:19 AM	> but it's still power-creep Power creep would require pushing the upper limits higher; what's happened with nonstandard races is more a case of making the junk less junky (since most of the early-costing races were just that mechanically). There may be a mentality which sees anything nonstandard as more powerful, but by and large that's an illusion unless you get into corner-case exploitation; even with the recent improvements in LA costing, most nonstandard races are still notably less effective mechanically than the standard races are.
Polaris 06-23-07, 08:30 AM	> but it's still power-creep Power creep would require pushing the upper limits higher; what's happened with nonstandard races is more a case of making the junk less junky (since most of the early-costing races were just that mechanically). Actually both seem to be happening often as a poorly disquised effort fix a class (fixing the sorcerer class with the new Spellscale race is a classic example of this). There may be a mentality which sees anything nonstandard as more powerful, but by and large that's an illusion unless you get into corner-case exploitation; even with the recent improvements in LA costing, most nonstandard races are still notably less effective mechanically than the standard races are. I can assure you that the mentality is alive and well, and you can't neglect the corner-case exploitation. The newer races (and the non-standard races in general) are often badly playtested....if they are playtested at all, which opens you, the DM, up to some horrible abuses if you aren't careful (and sometimes even if you are). Admittedly (and I've already said this), it's not the only reason why non-standard races are popular with certain sets of gamers, but IMX anyway it's one very important factor.....and IMHO a factor that needs to be squelched. Even if the player is mistaken, the attitude is a bad one. -Polaris
Archangel62 06-23-07, 08:48 AM	This includes the standard D&D portrayal of many of those races. Orcs are one example: Not only has Eberron (an official D&D setting) portrayed them in a very different fashion than the D&D generic setting and monster manual, but looking outside of D&D you see entirely different portrayals of orcs in games like The Elder Scrolls or Warcraft. Remember folks, when the Orcs are tree huggers and the elves are violent psychos you're in Eberrron. But onto the main topic, I have nothing against someone wanting play a monstrous character or a variant race. However the large number of subraces does annoy me. Mostly elves but that comes from Forgotten Realms whole thing of "There is a race for every class that has the perfect stats for it." Just not my thing I guess, I think that if a person wants to be an ogre, a troll, or some other kind of monstrous character and the LA wouldn't throw them completely out of whack with the rest of the party I see no problem with them doing it.
Peregrine_Wolf 06-23-07, 08:53 AM	I for one, like to play certain races based on my characters. I like mobile characters that are hard to hit, so I like races with nice Dex. I usually go with Elf or Catfolk. I know someone who like to play Lupins a bit, but if he were to paly in a campaign I DMed, I would likely not allow him to play one because of stuff he did with a Lupin in a previous campaign. Some people just like certain races because of the way they look. I'm into Elves and Catfolk for the stats, yes, but also, I like their fluff and stuff. It's just cool to me, so I play it.
AkumaDaimyo 06-23-07, 10:51 AM	Lupin? What's a Lupin? Also the guy who wants to play something really outrageous is never going to get to level so he can enjoy his half-fiend dire werewolf half-dragon/whatever and the whopping ECL that comes with it and then get bored as he never levels or improves. But then I don't play in games like that anyway so it's not a issue. BTW Githzerai and Githyanki are not a huge strech depending on the campaign you know. In Planescape they work just fine and in fact are very common. And as far as the Orcs being treehuggers in Eberron? If people actually read the FR setting more closely they would see there is a area of the Forgotten Realms with good orcs who have settled down and married with humansso FR has nice orcs too. Also being a "Treehugger" Druid doesn't make you automatically a nice person anyway. There ARE evil Druids after all. There also are pyscho elves in FR too, Wood Elves and Wild elves as well aren't very nice. It also helps if the ignorant would differentiate between Valenar and Aerenal elves.
LoreleiIsildae 06-23-07, 11:37 AM	I typically see it boiling down to one thing: What's the character's story? Someone mentioned earlier, and I agree with this, that the base classes and races from core books can be fun and exciting based upon the history of the character, as well as how that character now fits into the overall story the DM is telling, AND what the player does with the character mechanically. It's easy to pick feats and skills to maximize the effectiveness and power of a PC, but to pick feats and skills based on the direction the story is going takes imagination and skill as a player. For example, let's say your a low level halfling barbarian who hasn't added much flavor to the story, and you've been focusing on combat oriented feats, until BAM! Your DM tells you you've been blinded, and it's a curse that won't be removable until you're at a high level (let's say cursed at 4th, removable at 15th) simply because the story is laid out that way. Now you've become a more integral part of the story, and you'll have to adapt. You most likely won't be taking the route you were taking, simply because you now have to overcome a weakness by being more selective with what feats you take and where you put your skills. I won't disagree either that after playing rogues and sorcerers and elves and dwarves for a long time can get tiring to even inventive and imaginative players. Other racial options can add flavor to the story that might not have existed otherwise. However, I would rule that the options would have to have some sort of tie-in to where the story was headed. It makes no sense to play a half-dragon Umbragen in a world that has neither dragons nor Umbragen. And if a player wants to play a character more powerful than the rest of the party, whether or not they will level slower, that character should be kept in check or simply not allowed. Ultimately, as with everything in D&D, it is up to the DM's discretion.
Yanagita Kunio 06-23-07, 11:42 AM	http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/51/Mainelupin.jpg But I think he means the anthropomorphic wolf race that was in Dragon awhile ago (and was in 2e as well?).
AkumaDaimyo 06-23-07, 11:42 AM	A character shouldn't be more powerfull than the party really. That's what ECL is for. Even though you've got cool abilities and stats ECL is supposed to basically be a guideline for how powerfull you are next to the party since your levels are ate up by those cool abilities. ECL counts as levels so if your total ECL plus classes levels is MORE than the partys average level then you can't play it. If the party is 8th level and your ECL monstrosity is the equivalent of a 9th level char, you can't play it. Kinda why I like racial levels for races that are just too powerfull. Mindflayers are a cool race in some games but just too god awfull powerfull to just allow flatout and their LA sucks. It's like +15. Having to kill a god just to level isn't fun. But Savage Species has a Mindflayer racial class so in a game where a mindflayer could work but everyone is 1st level, someone could actually play one.
AkumaDaimyo 06-23-07, 11:43 AM	http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/51/Mainelupin.jpg But I think he means the anthropomorphic wolf race that was in Dragon awhile ago (and was in 2e as well?). Uh the upload only has a picture of a flower. So he likes playing flowers? :-p BTW it's not that I won't play normal races or classes and enjoy playing them. It's that I don't like being limited to them all the time. A DM who never allows me to play anything outside of that will eventually bore me. But sometimes simplier games are fun.
Yanagita Kunio 06-23-07, 12:08 PM	Akuma-- Joking around. Both the wolf race and the flower are called lupin, though the latter has primacy. They feature prominently in a Monty Python sketch entitled "Dennis Moore"...which is likely why I find the race sharing their name quite so funny...YMMV. --- On topic-- People selecting odd races occurs for a variety of reasons: 1. They fall in love with the concept, regardless of the mechanic cost/benefits. In at least one group I've gamed with, the Half-fey and Fey-touched templates were picked for characters just because they had fey in the title. 2. They latch onto some mechanical aspect of the race, and decide that they want that particular ability. 3. The player wants a unique character: selecting an exotic race is one way to stand out. Worst case scenario, this can turn into an attention-getting plea by the player, but that's a player problem, not a "many funky races" problem.... Generally, anything that helps a player gets deeper into character and have fun is a good thing. The only time I have a problem with it is when the choice has HD/LA such that it imbalances the group (first being overpowerful versus low-level characters, then lagging by mid-to-high).
SilverFoxKnows 06-23-07, 12:29 PM	As a matter of personal taste I tend to stick with races that are at least humanoid. My last three characters were an Elf (Moon Elf in a FR campaign)and two Dwarves (Shield Dwarf in a FR game & a UA Desert Dwarf). Right now I'm working on an Ibixian. Not that exotic. I have an easier time relating to things that have a culture, even if it is different from human culture. I think I would have a hard time playing a character with four races and six templates. YMMV
caeruleus 06-23-07, 02:18 PM	And for the record, with the exception of immense cities that would actually have high level militia and extraplanar towns where everyone is high enough level/CR to survive fiendish incursion every Tuesday, a monstrous PC seriously isn't going to get mobbed. Why? Because each peasant individually understands that they'll be killed. The problem with "If we all work together, some of us will die but we'll bring it down in the end!" is the "some of us will die" part. Even the guards, who hitherto that point have had to deal with bandits and wolves, will understand concepts such as "It has arms as big as I am and could stuff three of me into its mouth." Unless they figure that the monster will start killing people randomly, in which case some of the peasants (such as those who are members of the militia) might be willing to sacrifice themselves to save their families. I agree that they won't be mobbed every time, but it can still be a common occurrence.
WolfHati 06-23-07, 08:53 PM	I think that situation is kind of fun from a role-playing standpoint. How do you convince the townfolk that the large hairy toothy thing travelling with you is not actually going to eat them? Does the townfolk's mistrust become a self-fulfilling prophecy as you are forced to fight them? How much do you risk taking the quite possibly more difficult path of disabling anyone who attacks you instead of killing them? If they started the fight, don't they deserve what's coming to them, anyway?
AkumaDaimyo 06-23-07, 10:11 PM	Well that's the good thing about Eberron. Most humanoids are protected under the code of Galifar.
runestar 06-23-07, 10:49 PM	Or your setting could be like Sigil - where it is essentially a mix of different monsters from various planes.:)
Jaxgaret 06-23-07, 11:06 PM	Okay, two things to mention here. One: Judge not, lest ye be judged. Two: This really belongs on the "What's a Player to Do" board.
caeruleus 06-23-07, 11:07 PM	Well that's the good thing about Eberron. Most humanoids are protected under the code of Galifar. Or your setting could be like Sigil - where it is essentially a mix of different monsters from various planes.:) Of course. It's only an issue if you assume the default descriptions of the races and the cultural attitudes towards them. There's no reason why you can't have a world in which orcs and goblins are be accepted, or where elves are attacked on sight.
Adrez Nesnsid 06-23-07, 11:47 PM	I always wonder why players need to play the weirdest character race. I am just fine with playing core races and occasional aasimar or drow. But fiendish half-red dragon fire giant? Come on isn't the basics good enough? Myself I feel it's a stretch to allow githzerai or githyanki. Part of the problem is that all of the core races, (with the notable exception of the gnomes) are lame and derivative. Some of the core player character races have their own unique problems as well specifically: -Humans are boring and mundane. -D&D elves are far too tall to be proper elves. They all need to be a foot shorter AT THE LEAST. Additionally D&D elves have a habit of all being played as either pompous metrosexuals, Drizzt Clones, or (in Eberron) as being fixated on concepts stolen from either ancient Egyptian mysticism and/or Santeria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santeria). (Can you imagine the christmas specials????)
AkumaDaimyo 06-23-07, 11:51 PM	Humans are only as boring and mundane as you play them to be. Elves are NOT too tall. Considering that LotR was one of the staples of D&D and LotR elves are pretty damn tall? Your statement doesn't "measure up." Pun intended. You sure your not thinking keebler elves or something? Or Santa's Elves? :P The Elves in Eberron aren't boring though, come on ideas have to come from somewhere. It's more interesting than the same old elves of Greyhawk or FR.
Adrez Nesnsid 06-23-07, 11:58 PM	Humans are only as boring and mundane as you play them to be. Elves are NOT too tall. Considering that LotR was one of the staples of D&D and LotR elves are pretty damn tall? Your statement doesn't "measure up." Pun intended. You sure your not thinking keebler elves or something? Or Santa's Elves? :P I'm referring to every mention of elves that I've ever seen that wasn't more-or-less directly influenced by Tolkien. (Edit: I just remembered that Terry Pratchet's elves are pretty tall too and clearly not based on Tolkien's elves, as they appear as seven foot tall 'Greys' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greys) when not glamered) The Elves in Eberron aren't boring though, come on ideas have to come from somewhere. It's more interesting than the same old elves of Greyhawk or FR. You're right, they definitely are a big improvement!
AkumaDaimyo 06-24-07, 12:56 AM	The ideas for the elves in Eberron aren't 100% original but what is? I like both of the main elves, both Arenal and Valenar.
alchemyprime 06-24-07, 01:51 AM	You know, a friend of mine and I were looking at the races I allow (I'm DM obviously), and we were talking about races we liked and disliked. Me: I like humans. I think they are a tad weak, though. I'd probably given them any one skill as a constant class skill. Friend: Still don't want to play a human. M: Why? F: They suck. They're too normal. M: Well, what else do you dislike? F: Duergar. Can't stand them. And drow. They should be able to levitate. Like in the books. M: True. Anything else? F: Cactacae. M:Oh. Those are some of my favorites, the cactacae. F: Your favorites also include the skarn, rilkan and dromite. M: And my favorite scene from Star Wars is the Mos Eisley Cantina. What's your point? F: You have a flair for the essentric. M: Yeah, but I use humans so often as NPCs- F: Because the world isn't populated by Thri-Kreen. M: Meh. All I got out of this is no duergar ever. F: Seems like a good idea. Well, long story short, we both decided that duergar will be unavailable as PCs, but I said a very big list was still okay. I like giving options. There is nothing wrong with PHB races. If we don't have a human or two, I worry. But in the end, it's the player's choice. But too many templates... well... just avoid templates.
AAB 06-24-07, 01:53 AM	elfs is dumb. dwarfs are duh way to go. :P
AkumaDaimyo 06-24-07, 02:31 AM	Great way to prove elves are dumb by talking like your dumb. :rolleyes: Duergar aren't so bad, can be pretty cool actually. I still like drow and their whole culture, its just the fanboys who play really annoying drow that need to go. Clones and drow who just act plain stupid need not apply to be drow.
Cypher_of_the_Eye 06-24-07, 02:35 AM	i played an oger wizard. Once. i played a silver dragon monk. once. i convinced a stupid(very) and lazy(even more very) that Zenythri(MM2) were decended from Gith. that guy was fun. Swordsage fun:D. around lvl 12 or so he had an ac of about 40 or so:evillaugh. i've made more things Draconic than i can remember. but now i'm itching for a gnome... even the most banaly bland race/class combo in all of D20-dom is more appealing to me than any of white wolfs material. note: i'm not calling it garbage. i personaly do not like it.
ElberethSilverleaf 06-24-07, 02:06 PM	A large factor is the campaign world you're playing in . If you're in in Faerun or Greyhawk and your party consists of a drow, a tiefling, a goliath and 2 humans, you can bet the locals are going to be screaming for the local watch if you're trying to enter City Greyhawk or Waterdeep. However in most cities of Eberron most of the watch will simply check your papers, ask you to state your business and send you on your way. Would I like to play a orcish mage in Eberron? Maybe as it might be fun. But not in Greyhawk or Faerun as most people would have you in custody pretty quick. In my experience though most people who want to play races wtih high ECLs are unfortunately trying to get an advantage over the other players in the campaign.
AkumaDaimyo 06-24-07, 03:45 PM	Except that any such advantage will be lost when they realize they level more slowly compared to everyone else. Really high ECL's make it near impossible to level and that's no fun so that's the price they pay. Not to mention any DM who actually knows how ECL works only allows ECL characters who match the party's level or beneath. So if everyone is 1st level only? No ECLs allowed then, unless you maybe use the race class idea from Savage Species and then you really have no advantage over anyone else.
Kobold Paladin 06-24-07, 03:58 PM	I didnt bother reading the thread I just want to give my 2 cents. The Problem with the Core Races: I hate the way long lived races are presented in D&D, so right there I hate elves (and by proxy half-elves) and dwaves unless they have been changed in a given setting. I hate halflings and gnomes because I hate that 2ft-4ft tall creatures (thats the range for small in the MM) have the same reach as humans and only minor physical draw backs given the actual size disparity. (halflings should be -4 Str, -4 Con, -2 Wis, +2 Dex with 2.5ft reach) I have no problem with half-orcs but they arn't worth their mental ability penalties so I dont see anyone ever use them. That leaves humans, which I do like in terms of flavor and rules, since that doesnt give players many options I use alternate races in my campaigns for the 'default races'.
Dnarris 06-24-07, 04:17 PM	I think my biggest issue with core races is just that I've played them enough already. After playing for years and years and always playing core races you start to want to play new stuff that comes out. It's the same reason why core classes get played less....people that have been playing for quite a time get bored of the old material and want new stuff. Nothing wrong with that.
dknight100 06-24-07, 06:18 PM	I simultaneously have a problem with core races AND with all the splatbook races. How you ask? Because the splatbook races tend to be all really extravagent. Impressive, but after a while you get jaded. The magic of a really out there race is really diminished when they're everywhere. I dont blame players for wanting them, even i frequently play out there things (i really like Githzerai, and Shadar-kai are so much cooler than the Drizzt Collective - because as we all know, all drow are chaotic good rebels wanting to cast of the shackles and bad name of their society). But it just means that they quickly go from impressive & out there to old hat. My problem with core races is the published settings insistance that they're in every setting. Like: entirely new world? Here's OUR humans, elves, halflings, dwarves and gnomes, they're slightly different, but still mostly the race we all know. The campaign setting i'm currently preparing is taking a lot of work, because i'm only allowing human PC's, and everything thing else, all monsters and other races except animals, i'm statting out fresh so that my players have some new material to encounter, rather than the same ol.
PigFiend 06-25-07, 10:55 AM	I prefer when other options for races are truly about flavour and not about being way more powerful or especially tailored to a particular kind of character. The High Elf, though I can't say I like this, has a Con penalty that is universally bad to playing every class. It also has abilities that make it good at a variety of different classes. If you wanted, you could make elves that rather had a Str penalty and Int bonus. (Yes, I know.) Why stop there? Get rid of their inherent weapon proficiencies and give them Armoured Mage. Trade in their Listen, Spot, and Search bonuses for Spellcraft and Concentration. I think a race is improper for PCs if the race is virtually synonymous with a class (or narrow band of classes).
PigFiend 06-25-07, 11:02 AM	My second point is that most special races with LA's and big HD, lend themselves to fighting classes. There aren't so many that make casters better, at least not to the degree that chunky racial Str and Con make warrior-types better. Even with core races, I find that if a game features especially fabulous ability scores, the player who's got a Wizard feels badly badly outshone by the warrior-types because they do amazing damage with their Greatswords. When the bruiser is no longer a Half-orc but now an Ogre, the Wizard-loving PC is going to have even less fun.
RobbyPants 06-25-07, 11:11 AM	I always wonder why players need to play the weirdest character race. I am just fine with playing core races and occasional aasimar or drow. But fiendish half-red dragon fire giant? Come on isn't the basics good enough? Myself I feel it's a stretch to allow githzerai or githyanki. This can be for any number of reasons. Sometimes, players just want to mix things up. I feel what might be a big culpret is when a DM doesn't fully understand the LA system. I had this happen in a game I was playing in. It was around the time when 3.5 was coming out. So the DM had all 3.0 books, with some new 3.5 supliments. At some point, he got ahold of a 3.5 MM, but didn't bother reading the rules. Back in 3.0, the DMG had some level equivalencies listed for monster races. They statted a minotuar as 8 (which works out to the same in 3.5 with LA +2 and 6 RHD). When they started listing the LA in the 3.5 MM, he just used that figure, without calculating in the RHD. So, he ran a 3rd level group, which consisted of a minotaur, centuar, satyr, and a halfling. I kind of felt sorry for the halfling. We still kept the RHD. Somehow, he felt that a level 1 minotuar barbarian was okay as a 3rd level PC. Really, any game that guy ran was broken as hell, anyway. This was kind of mild in comparision. :P
Danflor 06-25-07, 11:16 AM	For players wko like to play weird races, make sure to run it by your DM. While it is fun to play them, it is hard for a DM to cope with. If he says no, don't take it so hard. :P
Manyfist 06-26-07, 06:48 PM	I personally like to play monster races for me I don't want to be the same ole Human (even if your background story is awesome, no one is going to give you a second glance unless you're very famous/infamous and even then when walking in a rink-a-dink Thorp, you'd blend in.) If reading Drizzt books taught me anything, being out of the normal is going to shock a lot of people. However way most of the campaigns are set, you walk into the city as a Troll you're bombarded with miltants as soon as some one screams "TROLL!" since Troll = Evil and Evil = Bad. Which is why I like Eberron, a Troll can walk into Sharn (Most populated city) you'll get some looks (after all Trolls aren't as common as say a Human) but not get attacked on sight just because your Tall, Green, and look scary. I like to play the bizare and the strange however, not get hunted down just because my character isn't one the thousands of subraces of Elf/Human/Dwarf...etc.