We don't have goblins, ogres, and half demons as player races.
I'd love to see Goblin and Kobold get a writeup for PC use.
First I see a comment about damage at fist level being "crazy", and then a claim that there are too many races? Are we playing the same game?
What's wrong in 'aliens'? Games like Paladin's Quest (SNES) shown us that non standart stuff can be epic.
If it don't fit your world, just don't allow them and move on.
Sad to see that more options = 'bad' for somes. Albeit unlike Salla, I say - 'you can walk and chew gum' - you can have old classics and new stuff both, and it's okay.
- Common races have no restriction. They are all over the place in the world, blend into a crowd easily, and are only remarkable by their status and ability.
Eberron Example Commons: Humans, Half-Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes, Halflings, Elves.
- Uncommon races are restricted to one party member per race. This is best used for PCs that should be noteworthy for their race, but not 'stop and stare'-worthy.
Eberron Example Uncommons: Half-Orcs, Shifters, Changelings, Kalashtar, Warforged, Goblins, Hobgoblins (maybe add in Dragonborn, Tieflings & Eladrin).
- Rare races are heavily restricted - only one per party total. These are the guys that get the stares and extra attention from guards.
Eberron Example Rares: Everything that isn't common or uncommon.
Addendum - I'd apply this to some backgrounds as well. As a final Eberron example, characters of any race from a different continent than Khorvaire should probably be considered Uncommon at least. Unless, of course, you want a 'different' kind of campaign other than standard, which is cool in its own right, just requires different boundaries for party comp.
This is pretty easy to handle, to be honest. Make three groups: Common, Uncommon, and Rare. Place the various races in these three groups.
- Common races have no restriction. They are all over the place in the world, blend into a crowd easily, and are only remarkable by their status and ability.
Eberron Example Commons: Humans, Half-Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes, Halflings, Elves.
- Uncommon races are restricted to one party member per race. This is best used for PCs that should be noteworthy for their race, but not 'stop and stare'-worthy.
Eberron Example Uncommons: Half-Orcs, Shifters, Changelings, Kalashtar, Warforged, Goblins, Hobgoblins (maybe add in Dragonborn, Tieflings & Eladrin).
- Rare races are heavily restricted - only one per party total. These are the guys that get the stares and extra attention from guards.
Eberron Example Rares: Everything that isn't common or uncommon.
Addendum - I'd apply this to some backgrounds as well. As a final Eberron example, characters of any race from a different continent than Khorvaire should probably be considered Uncommon at least. Unless, of course, you want a 'different' kind of campaign other than standard, which is cool in its own right, just requires different boundaries for party comp.
Actually, this is NOT a good idea.
The heroes, the pcs are SPECIAL. They should not be restricted - and some of those restricted races have also MORE reasons then to be adventurers, if you needed an example.
If there is ONLY 2%of Awakened (magic able) peoples in Shadowrun, and that a party of ALL Awakened (or other rarer stuff like metavariants (to closest thing to 'subraces' in SR) ) is ok and not forbidden in SR, why should there be restrictions in D&D?
Arcane Guyver, the players should play what they want. The in game rarety in population numbers should have NO bearing on what theyc an play, and DM should NOT restrict this. This is an uncrative, imaginationless and stiffling answer to a non problem.
This is an uncrative, imaginationless and stiffling answer to a non problem.
So, instead of just shutting him down, let's try and see what has merit in his suggestion and work with that.
I agree with Ubber in that a party should not necessarily reflect population bias as they are special but that should only apply to restrictions on character creation. Players should be able to play whatever race they want, or you'll end up with unnecessary fights over who gets to be the "special" race.
However I do agree that some races should be usual and some should be unusual. A Dragonborn in Breland should attract more attention than a Human but that should be a roleplaying consideration and not a mechanics one.
This is an uncrative, imaginationless and stiffling answer to a non problem.
So, instead of just shutting him down, let's try and see what has merit in his suggestion and work with that.
I agree with Ubber in that a party should not necessarily reflect population bias as they are special but that should only apply to restrictions on character creation. Players should be able to play whatever race they want, or you'll end up with unnecessary fights over who gets to be the "special" race.
However I do agree that some races should be usual and some should be unusual. A Dragonborn in Breland should attract more attention than a Human but that should be a roleplaying consideration and not a mechanics one.
I know and agree - Awakened by example in SR may face prejudice, like in Iran. Or an elf or eladrin in the land of the grey orcs tribes in my world, that may not fare well. But again, it's fluff and rping, and should not be exagerated - I have seen sly/jerkass DMs trying this way what they wouldn't directly by plainly saying 'no' to a race. Aka discouraging players to play a race in a sly way.
The campaign was a nod to 'old-school' D&D. There were no dragonborn or tieflings. Sure, D&D presents lots of other options but for those games, we stuck with the stuff that *felt* like it might work in an old-school setting.
= = =
On the flip side, you could develop a campaign that has no classic dwarves, elves or haflings. Consider a setting where there are humans, dragonborn, tieflings, deva, shifters, minotaurs, wilden, genasi, and changelings. These are all fantasy races of a different flavor. They're all archtypes for one thing (the dragon man, the devil man, the animal man, the plant man, the elemental man, and the doppleganger).
= = =
The options are out there. Use as much (or little) of it as you want. Oh, and I second the idea that Arcan Guyver submits: I've used the broad catagories of common, uncommon, and rare in my 3.5 hoomebrew. Common was readily available from the start, uncommon races were races that might (say for instance) appear in 'supplements' and rare races were essentially PC-only races.
In this 3.5 setting the common races were humans, dwarves, elves, half-orcs, and muls; the uncommon races included gnomes and warforged, and there was a rare PC-only race, the Player Handbook-style elf (which I later called eladrin-- in a nod to 4e).
And this fall into the same issue - assumating that players characters are 'not special' ina way, that they should = demography or such folly.
Again, players are special, and there is NOTHING wrong to an all Awakened or Metavariants like Oni (japanese Orcs) Shadowruners in SR, or a party of drow in FR D&D by example. The DM should then also deal with it, and try to make it work - contraints from PLAYERS can also augment creativity.
But again, ONLY if both players and DM are okay with it.
And this fall into the same issue - assumating that players characters are 'not special' ina way, that they should = demography or such folly.
Again, players are special, and there is NOTHING wrong to an all Awakened or Metavariants like Oni (japanese Orcs) Shadowruners in SR, or a party of drow in FR D&D by example. The DM should then also deal with it, and try to make it work - contraints from PLAYERS can also augment creativity.
Pardon for the derail . . . but what's "assumating"?
A game I'm in has a party consisting of a Goliath, a Human, a Dwarf, and a Gnome. In Eberron (Khorvaire), so none of those races are implausible. But the campaign is, so far, entirely in Zilargo, where the population is overwhelmingly dominated by Gnomes. WTF is a Goliath doing in a land where ceilings are normally at chest-height? (Yes, we have an explanation, greatly assisted by the fact that we began the campaign at level 6 and already a full year into a search-and-retrieval mission; I also later took advantage of an opportunity to comment vaguely on prior adventures well outside Zilargo.)
The only thing I would add is that if they are playing an uncommon or rare race, they may have to put something in their backstory to justify their character's presence.
A game I'm in has a party consisting of a Goliath, a Human, a Dwarf, and a Gnome. In Eberron (Khorvaire), so none of those races are implausible. But the campaign is, so far, entirely in Zilargo, where the population is overwhelmingly dominated by Gnomes. WTF is a Goliath doing in a land where ceilings are normally at chest-height? (Yes, we have an explanation, greatly assisted by the fact that we began the campaign at level 6 and already a full year into a search-and-retrieval mission; I also later took advantage of an opportunity to comment vaguely on prior adventures well outside Zilargo.)
As long it is not demanding the moon.. Goliath? may be a traveling sellsword, or a mercenary. There.
See?
Kalnaur, not a native english speaker, sorry. Assuming?
I know the game has to expand or people will get bored. But adding all these new races to play drives me crazy. I'm fine with dragonborn two elves type tiefling etc in the book but adding new races all the time Minotaur goblin ogre half demon angel whatever pulls away from core
If I understand you correctly you’re suggesting that WOTC has already published too many races and should not publish any more. Could you please explain to me why you think your desire for fewer options should limit my group? Please take into account the fact that we do not live anywhere near each other and probably will never have the opportunity to play together or interact in any offline manner. I do not understand why your desire for fewer options should affect millions of players throughout the world. I’m all for people getting what they want, however sometimes that requires house ruling because different individuals desires are too divergent. I think this is one of those times.
Kalnaur, not a native english speaker, sorry. Assuming?
I'm on an image kick. Can you tell?
I was just making sure. It sounded like a combo of assuming and estimating, and thus I wasn't sure if you were making a portmanteau.
I know the game has to expand or people will get bored. But adding all these new races to play drives me crazy. I'm fine with dragonborn two elves type tiefling etc in the book but adding new races all the time Minotaur goblin ogre half demon angel whatever pulls away from core
Please understand that while many individuals who play this game find do find difficulty handling numerous options, many other individuals who play this game find difficulty with few options. While it's unfortunate that you will have to deal with the frustration of having new races to ignore, or, if you cannot ignore them, to accept grudgingly, your frustration is equal to that which the other players feel, but forbidding or grudgingly accepting a race is far easier than homebrewing on with any sort of balance.
The ounce of discomfort this gives you saves others a dragon's weight of discomfort.
Actually, this is NOT a good idea.
The heroes, the pcs are SPECIAL. They should not be restricted - and some of those restricted races have also MORE reasons then to be adventurers, if you needed an example.
Well, first off, not all games are kitchen sink, drink from the firehose-type affairs. Some campaigns allow anything, others are more restrictive, and some are incredibly restrictive (ie, someone on these boards was talking about an all-drow campaign recently).
In defense of the grouping system, I think it helps opens some communication between player/DM expectations. If one player wants to play a drow, and another wants to play a goliath, the players and the DM can talk it out and determine what these players want out of their characters. Perhaps the drow is distinctive and rather famous, an inquisitor known as the Shadow of Breland; the character is certainly an outlier, but since he/she is a known quantity in society, it is no longer an outsider (while the savage but curious ex-slave goliath from Xendrik ends up being the actual odd duck of the group).
Actually, this is NOT a good idea.
The heroes, the pcs are SPECIAL. They should not be restricted - and some of those restricted races have also MORE reasons then to be adventurers, if you needed an example.
Well, first off, not all games are kitchen sink, drink from the firehose-type affairs. Some campaigns allow anything, others are more restrictive, and some are incredibly restrictive (ie, someone on these boards was talking about an all-drow campaign recently).
In defense of the grouping system, I think it helps opens some communication between player/DM expectations. If one player wants to play a drow, and another wants to play a goliath, the players and the DM can talk it out and determine what these players want out of their characters. Perhaps the drow is distinctive and rather famous, an inquisitor known as the Shadow of Breland; the character is certainly an outlier, but since he/she is a known quantity in society, it is no longer an outsider (while the savage but curious ex-slave goliath from Xendrik ends up being the actual odd duck of the group).
That a DM says 'there is n o X in my world', it's okay.
But if a race may exist in your world, like Drow in FR....
I'd rather a dm make a world without X at the base, than block players from playing X.
And this is implying a DM should not try to find a logic way to put race X into his world, but not allow it at all, and not give it a chance - this is for me blocking creativity, a bit sad. Maybe this contraint would add something, a random Great Idea, to his world, no?
Kitchen sinking would be simply not thinking of a place first.
DMs should work with the players, and not always say no outright, UNLESS of course something is unreasonable - like if the players want to do a band of elf out to settle good and justice to their peoples... and lo, one silly fool want to play a Drow. CLERIC OF LOLTH.
Also, Salla's post.
And to add more, even default races BTW can be rare or uncommon - in my setting, tieflings are a spread around diaspora, not very commonly seen nowaday. Dragonborns? They have their own nation, and numbers around in the regions, well, around, but they are not common seen out this large area at all.
Not blocked to players though, nor restricted. I allow good ideas from players.
"I'd rather a dm make a world without X at the base, than block players from playing X."
D&D already does this, and has for years, to one degree or another. goblins/orcs/kobolds exist, and are intelligent humanoid races. why are they blocked from being played ? because they are 'monster races' ? to me, tieflings (et al) are more monstrous than these races. this is the real travesty here.
restricting PC races does nothing but restrict storytelling. if one story doesnt include some races, fine; but to restrict someone else's story is just plain wrong.
if you don't want a game with all the crazy races ... don't use them ! it's much easier to filter out races you don't want, than it would be to make your own race that hasn't been created.
DMs should work with the players, and not always say no outright...
In defense of the grouping system, I think it helps opens some communication between player/DM expectations...
...
I've never actually had to implement a system like this when I run games; my group is pretty much on the same page in this respect. But for someone like the OP who is stressing out about keeping up with all the new races and figuring out where to drop them into their campaign setting, it is a possible starting point. Maybe it was a failed attempt at constructive advice? Meh.
(Yes, this post was triggered by Gallard...)
I think racial restrictions can help to make particular settings feel more distinct. I would never, ever allow someone to play a gnome in a Dark Sun campaign. Once you have gnomes, hamadryads, clerics and paladins running around, it's not Dark Sun anymore as far as I'm concerned. However, D&D is a cooperative game, not an excuse for a DM to go on a dictatorial power-trip. If one player really had his/her heart set on playing a gnome, I would simply not run a Dark Sun campaign. I'd choose a different setting where gnomes are acceptable.
(Yes, this post was triggered by Gallard...)
How about just using them mechanically, but calling them halflings? Not sure why you'd want to replace the actual halfling mechanically, but still. :P
I like alternatives like refluffing to fit rather than just saying "no". Especially if all the player is interested in about that race are the mechanics, or a particular feature.
It also makes sure you have only the key monsters that players find important as major players, and that events head mostly in their desired reaction. Plus, you can play as a DM to put in some adventure hooks.
Worked great. Takes about 8 hours to play through a game, and then you're set to go with your campaign world.
I think racial restrictions can help to make particular settings feel more distinct. I would never, ever allow someone to play a gnome in a Dark Sun campaign. Once you have gnomes, hamadryads, clerics and paladins running around, it's not Dark Sun anymore as far as I'm concerned. However, D&D is a cooperative game, not an excuse for a DM to go on a dictatorial power-trip. If one player really had his/her heart set on playing a gnome, I would simply not run a Dark Sun campaign. I'd choose a different setting where gnomes are acceptable.
(Yes, this post was triggered by Gallard...)
I could see saying yes to a gnome in Dark Sun. Provided that he was (A) the last of his kind, (B) really emo about it (I mean "I **** razors I'm so depressed" level emo), and (C) was willing to know that he left the Land Within the Wind on whatever quest he put him or herself on, and that there would be no return to whatever scrap of their homeland they came from. So whatever quest this character was taking, it better be a doozy, because they're the last of their kind, and there ain't no seafoam deus ex machina gonna bring all the other gnomes back. So if that one dies, it was the last friggin' gnome in Athas, and GG man, you got it killed.
Yeah, that sounds about right. ;)
How about just using them mechanically, but calling them halflings?
Only in a Middle-Earth campaign for me (halflings/hobbits, I just don't dig in general D&D, same with orcs).
D&D already does this, and has for years, to one degree or another. goblins/orcs/kobolds exist, and are intelligent humanoid races. why are they blocked from being played ? because they are 'monster races' ? to me, tieflings (et al) are more monstrous than these races. this is the real travesty here.
A 'monster race' in 4e is basically defined as any race that does not have a well-developed PC write-up, whose members will always be represented by a monster stat block. So, while you may say tieflings are more monstrous than a kobold, it's an excercise in equivocation.
Besides, 4e does allow you to be all of the races you mention. Go ahead, check the back of the Monster Manual. You'll see write-ups for all those "monsters" as PC races. WotC gives you a caveat that they have not been properly balanced against the core races, but it still facilitates using them.
What's lacking? Support. And this is where my complaint with the proliferation of PC races comes in: I'd rather see a few, deep races than many shallow races. I'd like it so that when new racial options are released, my current characters in a long-running campaign can take advantage of them.
TY from your friendly neighborhood D.A.
Might as well make ph 4 and add lich fire giant mind flayer pixie as race.
Pixie is a race. Heroes of the Feywild.
My solution. A game world where you have a build race (= RAW race for making your character) and a game world race, mapped from it. It allows players to choose anything in D&D canon, and supports over half of the options as "normal" - players can always opt to be super-special-weird if they want.
Still a work-in-progress, and very fluff-light at the moment, but linked here for interest/feedback: docs.google.com/document/d/1v9-yYYH7EWRl...
Might as well make ph 4 and add lich fire giant mind flayer pixie as race.
Pixie is a race. Heroes of the Feywild.
And Lich is an Epic Destiny.
New races deva gnome Goliath half Orc shifter Minotaur githzerai shard minds wilden. Huh? New classes barbarian bard Druid invoked shaman sorcerer warden ardent battle mind monk psi on rune priest seeker. I'm sure some of these classes are overlapping and can fit into one but with the needs to make money they need to produce new books to sell so the crazy stuff starts to poke up. We see it in every edition until they stop. And make a new edition and start all over again. Some of the new races just don't make sense Minotaur shifter githzerai. Deva. Might as well make ph 4 and add lich fire giant mind flayer pixie as race. Let's add illusionist faith healer cavelier ninja ronin samurai as classes.
You know what, we should. In our campaign, I play a halfling artificer clockwork engineer with the archlitch destiny, and it it is AWESOME. I summon clockwork zombies and flying swarms of mechanical acid bats, and his phylactery is a steampunk machine he built to rip his soul out of his body and turn him into a lich. I love the combination of mad scientist/undead monstrosity thing he's got going on, all counterbalanced by his diminuitive size and happy-go-lucky halfling verve. He's like, "Hi! I'm going to rip your soul out of your still-living body and lock it inside a half-living clockwork monstrosity that will serve me for all eternity. Then we'll have cake!"
If you are playing a kitchen sink game, bizarre race/class/epic destiny/paragon path combinations can spur player creativity. I would never have thought a tiny undead clockwork maker would be cool, but he so is. Free your mind.
I'm also a bit confused as to how halflings "make sense" and minotaurs do not. If you don't like particular races that's fine. Don't play them. I will never ever play a pixie. If they don't fit the kind of story or theme you want, then restrict them. I've done very focused Tolkienesque high-fantasy games where races were restricted to human/elf/dwarf/halfling/half-elf, extraplanar games where the dominant races were shardminds and warforged, and everything in between. There's nothing wrong with restricting race and class choices if you're going for a particular fantasy feel or kind of story. but just because you don't like a given race doesn't mean it doesn't "make sense." It makes as much sense as you want or need it to.
New races deva gnome Goliath half Orc shifter Minotaur githzerai shard minds wilden. Huh? New classes barbarian bard Druid invoked shaman sorcerer warden ardent battle mind monk psi on rune priest seeker. I'm sure some of these classes are overlapping and can fit into one but with the needs to make money they need to produce new books to sell so the crazy stuff starts to poke up. We see it in every edition until they stop. And make a new edition and start all over again. Some of the new races just don't make sense Minotaur shifter githzerai. Deva. Might as well make ph 4 and add lich fire giant mind flayer pixie as race. Let's add illusionist faith healer cavelier ninja ronin samurai as classes. TY from your friendly neighborhood D.A.
First, punctuation is your friend and mine. Please use it.
Second, I'm wondering what your problem is with simply ignoring races you don't like, or placing story-focused restrictions on the campaign. Given the choice between WotC publishing only a handful of races and classes and publishing everything that occurs to them, I'd gladly take the latter: I'd rather have more options than fewer, even if I end up ruling some of them out because the flavor doesn't fit.
Finally, githzerai come from the 1981 edition of the Fiend Folio; claiming that they don't make sense in the game is... a little bit strange considering their pedigree. As pointed out upthread, lich and pixie are both already player elements. So are illusionist, cavalier, ninja, and samurai (which explicitly admits the existence of ronin). Apparently you're not playing with those things, and that's fine--but again, what's the problem with simply continuing not to play with them, rather than resenting their existence?
DM's should feel free to limit player races as they see fit.
DMs have FAR too many options right now. You can't even walk out your door without some random monster or trap or hazardous terrain trying to eat your face.
And some of them don't make any sense at all! I mean, dragons are color coded? What the heck is that all about. And don't even get me started on those aberant monsters. Do you really need stats for that many things with tentacles? We're not in Japan you know!
Jeeze. Options are bad and evil and the game would be better without them.
Then don't play them?
We don't have goblins, ogres, and half demons as player races.
I'd love to see Goblin and Kobold get a writeup for PC use.
Hm. I'm playing a goblin right now. The Heroes of the Feywild book has some good setting fluff I'm using for backstory, but the stats are from the Monster Manual.
Character builder supports several of the monstrous humanoids. So somehow, someone has figured out how to program them as PC races.
There are feats, if I recall, that give you some variation of demonic heritage. There's a theme that lets you play that you've made a deal with the devil.
What, exactly, is it you'd like to be able to do? If you can't play a goblin or kobold, is that because your DM won't permit it?
And my post's similarity to the dos equis guy meme is completely unintentional.
We all know the story of them vrs githyanki(sp) astral plane fiend folio as monsters to fight.
My gripe is two things. Well, 3. First I'm on a cell phone and not interested in full Grammar rules.
2. Their attempt to add races that are monsters is poor way of trying to sell more player handbook I understand they want to add Minotaur because they use to have dragon lance. U liked it but they had a great story to make it plausible. Country etc. just add another land falling out of the sky land and kill everything and make a rich story like dragonborn.
3. Classes. Remember when they had that horrible brown paper book with the gladiator swashbuckler pirate etc. same thing going on. All it is is a fighter or warlord with a few different things. Same with Invoker seeker to a priest. I know let's make an evoker abjureer enchanter conjuror as a class too.
2. No, it's a very good way to sell supplemental materials, because not everbody likes the Tolkien crap. Additionally, not everybody's D&D world is generic. For example, in my world, goblins, hobgoblins et al have become more civilized and live in harmony with the other races, except for some holdouts. In other words, you're as likely to find a goblin bandit as a dwarven bandit. As such, having PC stats for those races would be VERY useful to me.
\
3. There's very little class overlap in 4e. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Sent from my T-Mobil garminfone.
3. There's very little class overlap in 4e. You have no idea what you are talking about.
This. The Invoker and a Priest are COMPLETELY different archetypes. An Invoker is basically Moses. They're basically born as a conduit of a god.
PH3 was designed to have lots of outlier, weird stuff. Some githzerai do live on the material plane. Minotaurs can be heroic in some settings. Wilden is a renamed version of the killoren from 3e (an under-utilized fey race that has a story reason for being rare). The shardminds are brand-new, and definitely win the 4e 'WTF' award.
As far as the new shadow & fey races...some are rehashes of classic creatures (pixies), at least one is a reworked version from 3e (shadar-kai), and the rest are pretty much new.
If you're concerned about all the new classes, there's no need. Basically, the Cleric & Druid were 'everything' bagels in 3e, so they got broken up into different classes. The Invoker took the Cleric's big blasty powers, and the Avenger took what 'holy assassin' stuff it acquired during 3e and fleshed it out. The Warden took most of the warrior-esque bits from the Druid, while all the healing and restoration got redistributed to the Shaman.
You can probably just avoid the PH3 if you don't like psionics. There is non-psionic material in it, but even I will admit the Runepriest and Seeker were pretty unnecessary.
Good news! They're all completely optional.
For that matter, so are the PHB races.
I know the game has to expand or people will get bored. But adding all these new races to play drives me crazy. I'm fine with dragonborn two elves type tiefling etc in the book but adding new races all the time Minotaur goblin ogre half demon angel whatever pulls away from core
Ah, the joys of free will. That's what free will is for by the way...choosing ****. You only want to play dragonborn and elves, maybe tiefling? Fine. You go do that, while some of us want to explore something different. And possibly more exciting or interesting. To be honest I find dwarves particularly boring. I mean I don't really hate them, I just find them boring and so I wont play them. Am I pissed that they were included as a race? No, because other people like dwarves and want to play them. The great thing is as a creature with free will I can choose not to play a dwarf.
You're complaints are....well they are your opinion probably best to leave it at that. If you don't like the races in a book don't buy the book. Not really sure why you're so pissed off that they continue to release books with new content. You don't want anything more than the PH don't buy anything else and continue playing from just that, no problem. But for other people we like new classes to try out, races to explore, etc.
All the races have a story. Some a little more involved than others. Humans...don't really need some grand story. They're bloody humans we get it. Even dwarves don't need much aside from they love themselves some rocks and beer. Other races need more of a story, Wilden and Shardminds come to mind, and they have interesting stories. So all races have great stories attached to them it's just a matter of preference if you like them or not.
My friend doesn't like shardminds. He doesn't feel they fit with D&D. So he wont ever play one. That's fine, that's his deal. Me, I enjoy the idea and story of the shardminds. They're an odd living construct race created by the machinations of three gods who blew up the Living Gate. Most shardminds want to somehow get the Living Gate back together, while others don't. They're also unfamiliar exactly with mortals because of their alien nature. That's the neat part about them in my eyes, is that they are so odd. Living psychic energy that creates bodies out of the shards fo the Living Gate? To me I can't understand why my friend doesn't think they're cool. But that's just it, he doesn't like them, I do, to each their own.
My only major complaint about the number of races is that WotC doesn't some of them much, while others get tons of support.
And that I don't get to try all the fun ones out there. I have tried human, dwarf X2, goliath X2, halfling, gnome, elf, half-elf, genasi, shifter, half-orc, and dragonborn so far. Still want to try warforged, deva, satyr, pixie, tiefling, thri-kreen, eladrin, and kobold.
In my current campaign, the only races allowed are those from the PHB1, excluding Dragonborn and Tieflings. While I've nothing against allowing others in some of my other campaigns, it's silly to argue that what is currently allowed is too limiting. Look at the millions of wildly different characters that exist in normal, non-magical world books.
And yet, this is an easy solution - why not try to imagine ways to include them?
Anyway, I've reasons for the limitations, but I do have several NPCs of other races that my group has yet to meet.
...and if you don't, you are RACIS'!!!!
I've nothing against there being more races in the game, although I do think there should be a limit to how many of them should be allowable as PCs.
Anyway, I've reasons for the limitations, but I do have several NPCs of other races that my group has yet to meet.
There should not be no limits - well, the only limits I would allow are by example I. if they are impossible to fit at all (a robot 'race' in primitive fantasy by example) or II unable for the DM to check (like random homebrew a player got).
But otherwise, if it fit the setting, and YOU DM HAVE THE BOOKS and all, it should be allowed.
Kobolds are awesome!
Good news! They're all completely optional.
For that matter, so are the PHB races.
But then he wouldn't get to complain and limit the rest of us.
I've nothing against there being more races in the game, although I do think there should be a limit to how many of them should be allowable as PCs.
Anyway, I've reasons for the limitations, but I do have several NPCs of other races that my group has yet to meet.
There should not be no limits - well, the only limits I would allow are by example I. if they are impossible to fit at all (a robot 'race' in primitive fantasy by example) or II unable for the DM to check (like random homebrew a player got).
But otherwise, if it fit the setting, and YOU DM HAVE THE BOOKS and all, it should be allowed.
I may disagree if I understand you correctly. For campaign reasons I think DM's should be allowed to limit choices so long as those limits are made clear up front, and the reasons are revealed when possible. For the campaign I am currently running players were not allowed to play Human, Eladrin, Elf, Dwarf, Tiefling or Dragonborn. Basically they HAD to play the "freaky" stuff. The reason which I revealed after character creation was that they were all adopted children of a wizard who was studying the less common races. So I agree that some limits for campaign reasons are OK but there should be a good story reason. What the OP is suggesting however is bad because he just wants to stay core.
Or is that the same thing you are saying as well?
If WotC has any sense, a Kobold PC race will be included in the 5e PHB. And elves will get moved to an entry in the back of the MM.
Lot more elves than kobolds fans, sorry. you'd loose.
Lot more elves than kobolds fans, sorry. you'd loose.
Only because the elf fans haven't played kobolds.
In fact, just get rid of the rest of the races. Everyone will be a kobold. You'll thank me later.
Lot more elves than kobolds fans, sorry. you'd loose.
Only because the elf fans haven't played kobolds.
In fact, just get rid of the rest of the races. Everyone will be a kobold. You'll thank me later.
For some reason this strikes me as a D&D-ized version of Mouse Guard. :P
Lot more elves than kobolds fans, sorry. you'd loose.
Only because the elf fans haven't played kobolds.
In fact, just get rid of the rest of the races. Everyone will be a kobold. You'll thank me later.
I've nothing against there being more races in the game, although I do think there should be a limit to how many of them should be allowable as PCs.
I agree. The number of PC races in a game should never exceed the number of PCs in the game.
I've nothing against there being more races in the game, although I do think there should be a limit to how many of them should be allowable as PCs.
I agree. The number of PC races in a game should never exceed the number of PCs in the game.
Why should that only apply to races? Why not classes, too? Why not one CHARACTER for each PC in the game? We can just have 4-5 pre-made character sheets and you just choose one. Because why would anyone POSSIBLY want more than 4-5 choices?
I've nothing against there being more races in the game, although I do think there should be a limit to how many of them should be allowable as PCs.
I agree. The number of PC races in a game should never exceed the number of PCs in the game.
Why should that only apply to races? Why not classes, too? Why not one CHARACTER for each PC in the game? We can just have 4-5 pre-made character sheets and you just choose one. Because why would anyone POSSIBLY want more than 4-5 choices?
Perhaps you misunderstand what I'm trying to say. What I mean is that, IMO, there should always be some races that are never selectable as a playable race.
I've nothing against there being more races in the game, although I do think there should be a limit to how many of them should be allowable as PCs.
I agree. The number of PC races in a game should never exceed the number of PCs in the game.
Why not one CHARACTER for each PC in the game?
That's the norm, unless you're playing a schizoid PC - or some sort of pet-owner PC and actually giving the pet a personality. (I once played alongside a Shaman who would get into arguments with his Spirit Companion.)
We can just have 4-5 pre-made character sheets and you just choose one. Because why would anyone POSSIBLY want more than 4-5 choices?
Um... I think you missed something.
Suppose you have five PCs: a Human, an Elf, a Dwarf, a Halfling, and a Goblin. There are five PCs and five races; the number of PC races does not exceed the number of PCs.
Now the Goblin dies and the player rolls up a Shardmind. You still have five PCs and five races; the number of PC races does not exceed the number of PCs.
Next the Halfling dies, and that player rolls up another Shardmind. Now you have five PCs and only four PC races.
Perhaps you misunderstand what I'm trying to say. What I mean is that, IMO, there should always be some races that are never selectable as a playable race.
That decision should be made on a case-by-case, game-by-game, and/or table-by-table basis. WotC should print as many racial stats as they feasibly can, and let the players decide which ones they do and don't want to use. You don't like it? Don't play 'em, it's as simple as that.
Perhaps you misunderstand what I'm trying to say. What I mean is that, IMO, there should always be some races that are never selectable as a playable race.
That decision should be made on a case-by-case, game-by-game, and/or table-by-table basis. WotC should print as many racial stats as they feasibly can, and let the players decide which ones they do and don't want to use. You don't like it? Don't play 'em, it's as simple as that.
Yuppers, just right here. This is the best way to do things.
Which begs for me the question is when are we going to get Githyanki as a player race?
Lot more elves than kobolds fans, sorry. you'd loose.
Only because the elf fans haven't played kobolds.
In fact, just get rid of the rest of the races. Everyone will be a kobold. You'll thank me later.
Isn't that the basic premise behind Kobolds Ate My Baby?
Why not one CHARACTER for each PC in the game?
That's the norm, unless you're playing a schizoid PC - or some sort of pet-owner PC and actually giving the pet a personality. (I once played alongside a Shaman who would get into arguments with his Spirit Companion.)
I meant "one character actually playable in the system per assumed player", not "one character being played at any given time by a player". Sort of a "logical extreme" thing.
We can just have 4-5 pre-made character sheets and you just choose one. Because why would anyone POSSIBLY want more than 4-5 choices?
Um... I think you missed something.
Suppose you have five PCs: a Human, an Elf, a Dwarf, a Halfling, and a Goblin. There are five PCs and five races; the number of PC races does not exceed the number of PCs.
Now the Goblin dies and the player rolls up a Shardmind. You still have five PCs and five races; the number of PC races does not exceed the number of PCs.
Next the Halfling dies, and that player rolls up another Shardmind. Now you have five PCs and only four PC races.
Whoops. Thought you were going on the train of thought "If there are assumed to be 5 players in a game, then they should only release five races". I thought your post was agreeing with SwampDog that the number of PLAYABLE races should be limited.
Personally, I don't see the harm in having lots of race options for players, even if I probably wouldn't use most of them. I actually value races more when they are more different to humans than simply "Human with pointy ears". It gives them, IMO, an actual reason to be presented as something other than a different culture of man. If races are going to be limited, I'd actually prefer it to be limited to human ONLY.
I might be going off the current topic, but in the spirit of the name of the post I am tired of new races, not because of the new options, but because of the lack of options, the new races do not have any (or at least very little) feat support. I look at any new race after player's handbook 2 and there is very little feat support. I think they should support better what they have before rolling out with a new race every book.
Not a big deal for me ... I can only think of one racial feat I've EVER taken (Warforged Tactics). I really couldn't care less about feat support.
That said, I usually only take 1-2 racial feats as well, though it depends on the class, classes with very little feat support need some sort of filler.
Some of the more quirky races can definitely use some feats, though. The Hengeyokai would do good with some racial feats to enhance their animal side. Stuff like that would be nice.