Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Slit518 Jul 20, 2015 18:11:32	If they came out with a Player's Handbook which was about monster races and classes, would you buy it?   Say it added races and sub races for some of the following: Goblin Orc Kobold Lizardfolk Gnoll And then it added some "evil" classes along with archetypes for each class: Marauder Warlord Scourge Hexist Binder Soul Welder And then what if there were some additonal equipment and spells to top it all off?   Of course there could be more races/classes or even different races or classes. I just put some races I thought would fit in the book. The classes I picked ones that sounded like they would go well with monsters, as well as making some up that sound good as well.   Share your thoughts and opinions!
#2 rampant Jul 20, 2015 18:36:18	I think 'evil' is a pretty poor class concept. Honestly i don't know. You'd have to sell me on the classes and the other stuff because the races in 5e are just kind of meh.
#3 Reius Jul 20, 2015 18:51:00	Hell yeah. I would be all over a book with more races, classes, archetypes or backgrounds/BIFTs. Especially gnolls and lizardfolk. Them's my peeps. Don't really see the need for more spells and equipment, but that wouldn't bother me (it just wouldn't motivate me to buy the book).   However, it really depends on the implementation. If there are racial adjustment levels or class restrictions according race/alignment/whatever, then no. **** that.
#4 Wuzzard Jul 20, 2015 18:51:24	No, I wouldn't buy it.
#5 Orethalion Jul 20, 2015 18:54:00	I probably would, but they won't be making anything like that.  They have no plans to do anything but settings/adventures.
#6 pukunui Jul 20, 2015 19:17:04	I'd buy it. During the playtest, I finally felt ready to allow monstrous humanoids as PCs in my campaigns ... and what happens? They decide not to include even basic playable stats (like they did in the 4e MM). Sigh ...   Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #5) AaronOfBarbaria	Orethalion wrote:
#8 MechaPilot Jul 20, 2015 22:02:12	Slit518 wrote:
#9 lawrencehoy Jul 20, 2015 22:17:53	I doubt I would buy such a book, or let my players play any "evil" characters. I certainly don't want any such thing linked to a product called a Player's Handbook.   I wouldn't object to it being called something similar to other edition equivalents (Savage Races, Humanoid Handbook, Nefarious Classes, etc.); as long as they are clearly supplemental options. I see the PHB, MM, & DMG titles as "core" and don't think these type of options should be considered as such.   NOTE: By "core", I mean available options that a DM would have to disallow; where "supplemental" options are ones that a DM must allow, to be considered available options.
#10 arnwolf666 Jul 20, 2015 22:24:34	I don't like races, so no I would not buy it.  I really don't like the freak of the weak races.
#11 MechaPilot Jul 20, 2015 22:29:33	lawrencehoy wrote:
#12 MechaPilot Jul 20, 2015 22:33:06	arnwolf666 wrote:
#13 Brock_Landers Jul 20, 2015 23:31:45	I would prefer a Savage Species type deal, never really been into playing goblinoids or orcs, but a treant could be nifty.
#14 LuisCarlos17f Jul 21, 2015 3:00:39	I would like a new Savage Species, but also with dragons monster classes (not only chromatic and metalic ones, but the rest, the oriental, the gemstones, the planar..).   I don´t like the background of the gnolls. They are furries with bad vibes.   The blue, the  goblin subrace with psionic powers should be a PC race. I also like the faytouched little humanoid races like the springans, the norckers and xvarts... they are like the evil D&D Tyrion Lannisters. They may be more interesting in the hands of the right storyteller.   * I wish the return of the half-ogre PC race.   * The lizardfolk are too boring for me. Why not the return of the catfolk? Catgirls are very popular today.   * "Evil" classes would be used for nPC bosses... why classes and not only subclasses?   * I would like the return of classes with own game mechanic, like the ones from "Tome of Incarnum", 3.5 Tome of Magic and "Tome of magic: book of nine swords". The vestige binders may be great hooks to create stories about  secret cults. I imagine the future shugenja with the game mechanic of the shadowmancer, but with her own list of elemental mysteries.
#15 Orethalion Jul 21, 2015 6:27:07	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#16 mrpopstar Jul 21, 2015 6:47:41	I would purchase in support of the hobby, but I'm not overly excited about monstrous races, and "evil" classes don't really fit my tables.
#17 Ralif_Redhammer Jul 21, 2015 7:45:22	I’d definitely be down with a book of the humanoid monstrous races (a la the old 2e Complete Book of Humanoids), but I don’t think I’d want new classes to go with them. New magic items and spells associated with the races would also be tops in my book.   Although, the goblins would be a tough one to pull off. Say what you want about Pathfinder, but their take on goblins is hilariously awesome.
#18 Marandahir Jul 21, 2015 8:29:15	Monster classes were mostly stupid. A class should be something you do, not something you are. A Vampire, for example, can be a class, because a Vampire is a modified creature, not a creature in of itself – it's an undead X with special abilities, whether it was born into it or made it or chose to become it. That's a good example of where a "monster" is really a class of monsters. But a Dragon should not be a class, unless we're talking Dark Sun where the goal of Evil Spellcasters is to become a Dragon. But even then, it's an end-game goal, equivalent to an Avangion for good spellcasters, so… it really shouldn't be a class either, but rather an epic reward. Using classes to emulate the abilities of monsters so that they can "gain more" over the course of their lives is just weird for me. That's a very different game from D&D. It MIGHT work within Council of Wyrms, where everyone plays a Dragon, so becoming an older, more powerful Dragon is the default thing to do (and thus draconic abilities should be developed over time). But for the most part, using the Dragon's power = age mechanic doesn't work within an XP structure. Dragons just don't become more powerful with age like that. If they gain XP, it's because the Dragon has a class on top of being a dragon. The DMG talks about this, as does the MM to some small extent. Adding a class to a monster can greatly increase its power (or not, depending on the class and the monster's own abilities). Earlier editions used class to track monster growth because they could, and because they had certain structures built in that made it hard to play a monster without doing so or having crazy level adjustments. Honestly, if I was going to add monster PCs, I'd just consider the Monsters in the MM as stronger (or weaker) versions of the race, and tone it down or beef it up to be on par with other races.
(Reply to #15) AaronOfBarbaria	Orethalion wrote:
#20 Mechatarrasque Jul 21, 2015 9:55:24	Monster races (whether with feats or classes) seem more appropriate for UA articles then a new book as they have been inconsistently implemented in the past, and would benefit from playtesting in the present.     I would prefer more race/feat combinations then monster classes, as long as we continue to avoid feat chains, and it doesn't take 4 feats to feel like the monster.
#21 Elfcrusher Jul 21, 2015 9:55:56	Buy it or use it?   'Cause, you know, shiny new D&D stuff comes out and I have no choice but to buy it.   But I don't think I'd ever use any of it.
#22 Brock_Landers Jul 21, 2015 11:14:27	Marandahir wrote:
#23 MechaPilot Jul 21, 2015 10:23:16	Marandahir wrote:
(Reply to #20) rampant	Mechatarrasque wrote:
#25 Mistwell Jul 21, 2015 12:25:43	Not high on the list of things I want for the game
#26 MechaPilot Jul 21, 2015 12:33:14	Mistwell wrote:
#27 LuisCarlos17f Jul 21, 2015 14:00:33	Other option could be to create a class about to monster traits... something like the totemist from "Magic of Incarnum" and the prestige class "demonbinder" from 3.5 "Drows of the underdark".  In the leveling up the character could spend "points of mutation" to buy monster traits, like natural weapons or armour, or wings..   And variants classes to play "nerfered" version of monsters, for example the favored soul could be used to play a softer version of outsiders.    And we could see some class like dragon shaman or dragonfire adept, something about to be a dragon-touched chapion or something like that. Yes, something like the prestige "Dracolyte" from 3.5 Draconomicon
#28 Mistwell Jul 21, 2015 14:18:59	MechaPilot wrote:
#29 SailorNash Jul 21, 2015 14:22:28	I would be *HIGHLY* interested in such a product, as it's something I'd definitely like to see both in terms of character options as well as more varied NPC opponents. However, I'd also have a few concerns.   I wouldn't want to see it themed as "Evil" quite so much...there's plenty of Neutral tribal/creature races, and Player Characters are the exceptions to the rule anyway. I mean, Orcs aren't much different than Half-Orcs and even the Drow have made it to the PHB at this point.   Also, aside from simply making them "official", I'd like to see what they did with these races beyond the basic +2 Primary, +1 Secondary, 1 misc. ability as appropriate. Those are easy enough to decide based on Monster Manual entries, or directly from the DMG table for lower-level baddies. It'd be more interesting to see these balanced alongside more exotic fare like Medusa or Mind Flayers, or templated critters like the Vampires and Werewolves folks like to play.   Personally, I'd also like to see more official Backgrounds. It's simple to pick a few skills or tools you need, but can become a little cheesy if ungoverned. Any custom background is going to include Athletics or Perception somehow because of course it will. Whereas with the PHB backgrounds, a good skill like Survival will be bundled with a useless tool like a musical instrument for both balance and flavor. Also, part of the Background mechanic was the idea of taking character Traits and Flaws...it'd be interesting to see a few more lists of these, especially if there were more and varied types of backgrounds to choose from.
#30 MechaPilot Jul 21, 2015 15:07:03	Mistwell wrote:
#31 Mechatarrasque Jul 21, 2015 15:02:36	rampant wrote:
#32 ankiyavon Jul 21, 2015 14:43:35	Elfcrusher wrote:
#33 awaken_D_M_golem Jul 21, 2015 14:58:42	Robots   Vampires   Werewolves   spooky Ghost like dudes   etc
#34 Uchawi Jul 21, 2015 15:16:26	As long as they offered some bridge to monster/martial ability to allow martial types to have more choices it would be worth a second glance. I would expect an expanse in feats.
#35 Mistwell Jul 21, 2015 16:44:32	MechaPilot wrote:
(Reply to #30) mrpopstar	MechaPilot wrote:
#37 Mistwell Jul 21, 2015 16:59:50	Here is the archieve of Legends and Lore articles, and surveys are still in them.  I spent about a half hour on it and could find no reference to a poll on playable monsterous races.  Anyone? http://archive.wizards.com/DnD/Archive.aspx?category=all&subcategory=legendslore
(Reply to #37) mrpopstar	Mistwell wrote:
#39 Slit518 Jul 21, 2015 18:23:22	I also forgot the races Bugbear Troll Ogre Hobgoblin could be a sub-race of Goblin.   Also, what catfolk were there in previous editons?  Can we get a Ratfolk as well?   I wouldn't mind if the book packed in a few more feat options, as long as the feats were not overpowered and as good a variety/utility as the core PHB ones.   Also, for real powerful creatures, such as the Ogre, should they have something like +2 Str, +1 Con, and their possible Strenth and Constitution maximum can be 2 higher than the normal allowed maxiumum.  So for example the Ogre could eventually get a 22 Str or Con, or if they were a level 20 Barbarian a 26 Str or Con.  Would that be a cool idea for some of these races?
#40 Elfcrusher Jul 21, 2015 18:39:47	If they did do such I thing, I guess the two things I would find most useful are:   1) Races that aren't straight out monsters, but variants thereof.  So just as we have half-orcs, not orcs, I could envision a few "half-" races.  But since that gets boring, maybe some special creations as well.  I'd be disappointed if it were just ogres, lizardmen, kobolds, etc.  I'd want something that could conceivably mingle with respectable company.   2) More templates..."conditions"...like Vampire or Lycanthrope that could be added to existing characters.
#41 MechaPilot Jul 21, 2015 18:54:33	mrpopstar wrote:
#42 MechaPilot Jul 21, 2015 19:09:45	Mistwell wrote:
#43 Luciender Jul 21, 2015 20:23:09	I would get it. I've already been working on stuff for homebrew, but I would kill for an official 5E Kobold and a Vampire class.
(Reply to #12) arnwolf666	MechaPilot wrote:
#45 MechaPilot Jul 21, 2015 21:01:13	arnwolf666 wrote:
#46 The_Jester Jul 21, 2015 22:26:31	I don't really need/want evil classes. Some more evil themed subclasses would be nice though.   I'm already working on the monsterous races for my blog.    Still, 5 races is 15 pages, and 6 subclasses is another 3-6 pages. 21 pages at most. That's not really a book, that's a pamphlet.
#47 tyrionlannister2113 Jul 21, 2015 23:10:29	I might be interested in something like this, but I definetely wouldn't want it to be considered core for mainly the reasons lawrencehoy gave, but I also feel it would be a little too overwhelming for new players to get into. I think it would be much better if the only core books stay the PHB, MM, and DMG and everything else is purely supplemental.
#48 Bleak_Midwinter Jul 22, 2015 0:05:00	D&D 5E is at a good place right now with minimal splat and lots of settings and adventurers. Every new class and race that comes out makes the game more complicated and less balanced. I would not buy this and in fact it would reduce the reluctant love I have for 5E.
#49 mrpopstar Jul 22, 2015 5:00:13	MechaPilot wrote:
#50 Elfcrusher Jul 22, 2015 8:42:04	I'm actually kind of stunned at how high those numbers are.
#51 Mistwell Jul 22, 2015 8:48:33	mrpopstar wrote:
#52 Mistwell Jul 22, 2015 8:51:18	MechaPilot wrote:
#53 The_Jester Jul 22, 2015 9:55:29	I kinda expect to see a few of the monsterous races in the Rage of Demons Player's Companion (if there is one).
#54 Coredump00 Jul 22, 2015 11:19:39	If I wanted to walk into a tavern and see dozens of different races together... I would play Star Wars and not a medieval fantasy game.  (Yes, I realize others play differently)   Those same surveys found that 1/4 of the people felt dinosaurs were *essential* to playing DnD....  wut?   Another 1/3 felt they were 'very important'.....    I get the strong suspicion that the participants on those surveys may not accurately represent the typical play group.
#55 shintashi Jul 22, 2015 12:10:57	i would like to see Variant Tieflings, a more expanded and variant Aasimar section, and some elementalist wizard subclasses for the Genasai and dragonborn to play with.   Perhaps they could break races into 3 steps, low, medium, and high magic campaigns, so you could have CR 1 Dark Sun races, but also have CR 1/8 humanoids. The notion would allow more leeway into choosing races that might be imbalanced, but also flagging the imbalanced ones to let people know 'hey, wait a minute, these other races are OP".   They could even have CR 1 humans and elves, using things like extra feats and skills, or pulling some of the forgotten racial abilities from previous editions.   For example, a Birthright Human is probably  CR 1. A Hatchling from Council of Wyrms is CR 1. A Half Giant from Dark Sun is CR 1. An undead PC from Grim Harvest is CR 1.   A Githzerai might be CR 1/2 or 1/4.   That kind of thing.   Higher ranking Eladrin from On Hallowed Ground would not be the same CR as Gully Dwarves from Dragonlance.   Kender are approximately the same CR as elves.
(Reply to #53) Mechatarrasque	The_Jester wrote:
#57 Mistwell Jul 22, 2015 12:39:43	Coredump00 wrote:
#58 MechaPilot Jul 22, 2015 12:41:53	Coredump00 wrote:
(Reply to #57) Wuzzard	Mistwell wrote:
#60 MechaPilot Jul 22, 2015 12:55:45	Wuzzard wrote:
#61 rampant Jul 22, 2015 13:20:42	Slit518 wrote:
#62 awaken_D_M_golem Jul 22, 2015 13:48:26	Mistwell wrote:
#63 mrpopstar Jul 22, 2015 14:43:21	awaken_D_M_golem wrote:
#64 Mistwell Jul 22, 2015 15:19:20	Wuzzard wrote:
#65 Slit518 Jul 22, 2015 15:21:13	rampant wrote:
#66 Hebitsuikaza Jul 22, 2015 15:43:26	This is a difficult question because of how it is phrased.   First, let's consider... Orcs and Hobgoblins.   How exactly are these "monsterous" races?   I mean, really. Look at the things that are playable already or have been in previous editions and will be eventually. Drow, Dragonborn, Githzerai, Tieflings, Warforged, Changelings, Shifters, Aasimar, Gensai, Arakocra, Thri-kreen...   Seriously, in no way do Orcs or Hobgoblins fall under the category of "monstrous humanoid" if those things don't. ESPECIALLY Warforged and Thri-kreen.   Orcs are just wild primitives who are well behind the curve of civilization. They are still living like warring neanderthal tribes when everyone else has become more open, less violent, more cultured and more diplomatic. Depending on the exact details of how they are described, they might have some sort of rage that overpowers them or maybe they are more in touch with the primal forces of the world and certainly they are much stronger than the average human and they have tusks and weird colored skin... but compare that to a fey creature given human form or steam-punk robot? That's just not a monster-- its a typical humanoid that just happens to be aggressive and violent towards others most of the time (much like Drow and Tieflings).   Of course, the caveat to Orcs-- Half-Blooded Orcs are already in the PHB and there really isn't much in the Half-Orc stat block that gives any indication to their human side like Half-Elves get. To what extent should a full-blood orc stat block even differ?   And Hobgoblins? A bit bigger than humans, a bit more athletic, but generally less skilled and adaptable. Highly civilized, if half-a-step behind others. Their societies tend to be built on a survival-of-the-fittest mentality and to engage in all the cruel and nasty things that real middle-ages civilzations did in our world. They have a mixture of concepts from different human cultures-- spartan-esque in the way they weed out the weakest and train their peope, very Shogunate-era Samurai-esque in the way they hold up a code of conduct and honor and care a lot about others perceptions of them while those higher up on the pecking order likely diverge more from that code, and very Viking-esque in that their after life involves an eternal battle against demons in order to seize the first layer of hell. All in all, the Hobgoblins are such a ridiculously good fit as a PC race on a fluff level, it is striking to me just how badly D&D has always screwed up the implementation and instead given us TRUE monsterous races as PCs. But even the very first D&D adventures printed suggested that there would likely be hobgoblin adventurers and mercenaries around, just somehow never running with the PCs party.   Granted, the issue with Hobgoblins is... they have always been implemented badly? In terms of what sort of mechanical things they are supposed to be good at, every description of them has varied so wildly that there really is no possible way to tell. 2nd edition was just -1 Charisma for Dark Vision and the Dwarven Stonecutting ability, 3rd edition was bonuses to Dex and Con with a ridiculous Stealth bonus which cost them an entire character level, 4E was +2 to Con and Cha with an abiity to shake off effects and training in athletics and history which was probably fine except it never got the stamp of approval while WotC went on to put really ridiculously things in player PHBs... You could always say each editions depiction is a different subrace-- gray skinned subterranean ones, yellow-orange skinned stealthy ones and crismon skinned highly civilized ones. +1 to all attributes save for intelligence and wisdom plus Dark Vision and training in a single skill based on subrace? Or would that be too much better than the standard human? It'd be lame for any people who wanted to play a Hobgoblin Wizard or Cleric I suppose.     Beyond these... it depends. Goblins age at a crazy fast rate-- but then, that isn't necessarily any worse than elves. Goblins have often been depicted as having these big wolf things or bat things that they can ride that no one else seems to be able to train, so that's something... beyond that, they are just sort of dirtier, less couth forest/cavern/sewer halflings. Something made even more complicated by the fact that some of Halflings unique special abilities are things one would expect to be true of all races their size (can move through squares of larger creatures, can hide behind creatures bigger than them).   Also, trying to force Goblin and Hobgoblin into merely being subraces woulld brutally destroy the flavor of both. They shouldn't be considered the same thing any more than trying to force Gnomes to be a subrace of Dwarfs. They might be related, but they are pretty much polar opposites when it comes to their approach to the world and abilities. Quite a lot has been done to move Hobgoblins clearly and distinctly away from being just larger goblins... to the point that every single time a setting book starts talking about "goblinoids" in general a good 80% of what is written is CLEARLY only applicable to the small ones and wouldn't remotely fit how Hobgoblins would be organized and up to and doing in the world based on their description and even the two sentences or so devoted to singling them out.   One could argue that Kobold and Lizardfolk might have too alien psychologies for a player to get into... but that falls apart when Dragonborn and Thri-kreen and Warforged are possible PC races. Still, if one individual Kobold becomes too capable and powerful, it sort of starts to lose the whole point of what they were about when depicted as enemies. Similarly, Lizardfolks are very much defined by their primitiveness to even a greater extent than Orcs... once you move them into civilization and have them mingling just fine with everyone, it takes much of what they are about away.   And Gnolls are... well... huh. On the surface they are just furries. Which.. okay... the problem is that if one begins positing a humanoid whose core concept revolves around being some sort of human with the head and tail and fur of a real life animal... where does it stop? At what point could you ever draw the line and have enough? First its hyena and cats, then you get wolfs and foxes and monkeys and tigers and turtles and elephants and... it just goes on and on. Anyway, for Gnolls pretty much what I said about Lizardfolk apply. The core concept of the race is to be savage, primitive and vicious. You'd need to take that away from a PC version and they'd be left with very little on which to consider themselves a Gnoll.   Now, there are plenty of things that I would consider monstrous humanoids... Have extra planar origins and/or were never born and therefore their accumulation of experience really isn't something a human could wrap their head around. Their size and shape is pretty solidly beyond the bounds that any human who has ever lived in the real world (including non-modern humans) and seems to really call into question the rules regarding equipment and would demand physical attributes beyond the scope of the 3-20 bounds. Have natural abilities (or immunities) beyond the scope of what a level 1 human character with the right class would be able to accomplish.   But, again, many of these things are already PC races. At this point the only distinction between things that get playable and things that don't is not the monstrous traits of the race, but rather of the alignment label slapped on them... and since all of them have the possibility to be any of the 9 alignments anyway, it is no distinction at all.   Slit518 wrote:
#67 rampant Jul 22, 2015 15:46:17	The barbarian ability only works because it's rediculously high level. A racial bonus wouldn't be. Furthermore barbarian specifically does break bounded accuracy, but in a limited enough form that you'r enot going to be getting the kind of crazy numerical gaps between optomized and unoptomized that existed in 3e.   Now lets look at all that other stuff I glossed over in favor of the bounded accuracy argument.     Assuming your ogre grants +2 str, and allows you to go up to 22 str, that means that you have to invest at least 2 points of strength into them to get the benefit of this ability, which you can't do until at least level 4. So even the str builds are getting jerked around. In a point buy gane it's even worse because in order to benefit you'd have to put 5 points into str in order to benefit. Even with a fighter that's at least level 8 before you can really use that ability. The raised cap offers no benefit until you place your valuable feats/ability improvements in it. There's a reason the Barbarian ups the strength by the same amount it ups the cap that way you aren't any further behind on your primary attacking stat than you started with, also because it's a level 20 power and they'd never actually be able to fill the expanded cap otherwise. IN order to solve this problem you have to increase the bonus to go along with the increased cap. So in order for 22 str ogres to make sense you'd have to give them +4 str.   It's not a good power because it only benefits str builds. I know ogres are iconic strong types, but if the minotaur fanboys can learn to live with a +2 so can the ogre fans. Beyond just the ability boost it's nto a good plan to have the race's features too tied up in a single ability score. It's a real kick in the nads to people who want to try somethign even a little different because it forces them to emphasize certain ability scores regardless of whether it makes sense for an individual member of the race to do so. Ogre tribes have casters too afterall.
#68 Slit518 Jul 22, 2015 16:48:34	rampant wrote:
#69 Shasarak Jul 22, 2015 17:50:58	Yeah, I would be interested to see what they could do with Monsters.     AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#70 thewok Jul 22, 2015 18:40:53	I would get it for the classes.  I wouldn't allow the races as PCs in my game.   I might, however, relax that should a player give me a compelling reason to do so.  I'm talking about a character idea that says, "I want to see that played, and it can't be done with another race."  Luckily I'm blessed with a group that shares my sensibilities--at least in this regard.
#71 mbeacom Jul 22, 2015 20:09:04	I always felt like the monster races were pretty dumb and evil classes are not my thing so no I would not buy it.   What I would buy is more 32 and 64 page adventures like I happily did in every previous edition.  I have been generally pleased by the hardback adventure arcs/paths they've published but I don't really want to run a published campaign. I prefer to insert adventures and hooks into my homebrew campaign where they fit. Running a by the book campaign is not as interesting to me or my group.  Please publish more adventures. LMoP was fantastic. We need more of those please. The rules are great, lots of options. All we need is more adventures and more monsters.
#72 lawrencehoy Jul 22, 2015 23:03:28	Mistwell wrote:
#73 Hebitsuikaza Jul 23, 2015 1:43:03	thewok wrote:
#74 lawrencehoy Jul 23, 2015 4:05:24	Hebitsuikaza wrote:
#75 mrpopstar Jul 23, 2015 4:55:05	This thread be like...   OP: If they came out with a monster races/classes book, would you buy it?   Some: No, because reasons.   Others: You are a monster whose opinion is ruining the game for everyone else!
(Reply to #68) Wuzzard	Slit518 wrote:
#77 DemoMonkey Jul 23, 2015 8:38:57	No, I would not buy it, because other people want it and I hate joy.
(Reply to #54) LuisCarlos17f	Coredump00 wrote:
#79 Brock_Landers Jul 23, 2015 10:20:02	Even in Sigil, it's not as wacky as some would believe, or portray it, it is actually mostly Half-Elves, Humans (the majority), Bauriar, Githzerai, and Planetouched (aasimar, genasi, tiefling, etc).
#80 Hebitsuikaza Jul 23, 2015 15:39:38	lawrencehoy wrote:
#81 Shasarak Jul 23, 2015 16:03:33	Wuzzard wrote:
(Reply to #77) Slit518	DemoMonkey wrote:
#83 thewok Jul 23, 2015 19:16:15	Hebitsuikaza wrote:
#84 Hebitsuikaza Jul 24, 2015 6:10:22	thewok wrote:
#85 Orethalion Jul 24, 2015 6:26:38	Hebitsuikaza wrote:
#86 Elfcrusher Jul 24, 2015 7:50:14	Hebitsuikaza wrote:
#87 Elfcrusher Jul 24, 2015 7:48:46	Hebitsuikaza wrote:
#88 Kazadvorn Jul 24, 2015 8:46:44	I could see something like this as a 'variant' version of 5th, one where the players get to be 'on the other team'.   I'm not a big fan of mixing in Kobolds, Goblins and whatnot into a 'standard' party... but I have played the Free RPG Day "We Be Goblins" modules and they're lots of fun.   If a DM wanted to mix in 'monsterous' characters with the races and classes in the existing PH, fine... but if WotC ever DID do a new PH for 'monsters' then let the monsters be monsters... don't try to balance them against the existing races. I mean... An Ogre is going to be ALOT bigger and stronger than a Human... let alone a Gnome. Just create a template that accurately describes the 'aggreed upon' nature of a given creature and run with it.
#89 rampant Jul 24, 2015 8:55:49	I think that's the wrong approach. See in many world what constitutes a monster race varies, in Krynn minotaurs are a civilized if bloodthirsty and arrogant people (romans essentially), While the Draconians are working hard to establish themselves as a race rather than a minion type. In Kalamar Hobgoblins are a legitimate(ish) power.    It's better to have the 'monster' races balanced (at least in race form, the monster entires are a separate thing entirely) on the same level as the regular ones. That way you can play them alongside each other without having to deal with the major power imbalances, even in this magical realm where the players don't get miffed by the imbalance it still wreaks havoc on the campaign design. Now I agree that monster races should be able to get at least approximations of their full monstrous powers but they need to pay for it with feats or levels or something because otherwise we descend into anarchy, or worse yet: Level Adjustments.
#90 Brock_Landers Jul 24, 2015 10:04:49	Hebitsuikaza wrote:
#91 DemoMonkey Jul 24, 2015 12:05:39	"Grognard" is a race.   Just sayin'.
#92 shintashi Jul 24, 2015 12:38:18	i think the appeal of playing monster races is improved when people are used to playing humans. the idea of playing something far from the norm is the appeal. Take that away and you only have aethetics, intimidation, and bonuses or personal driven storylines... usually bonuses.   When Whtie Wolf came out, they got lots of people playing vampires and werewolves. They added a few monsters over the years, but eventually it came back to bite them: Mages and super heroes became monsters because they had become the "im playing a monster" game.   D&D is supposed to be about heroic figures in a fantasy setting.   Part of being heroic is fighting monsters, and monstrous behavior, like in that movie, Horrible Bosses, or any one of the 200 horrible scenes from Game of Thrones.   there's a lot of under currents to feelings, public taboos, and so on, to playing monsters though. Hunchback of Notredam, Cher's Mask, and Shrek on the one side, the Furry community near by, and then the guys with pitchforks and torches on the opposite end looking for Frankenstein's creation.   So basically, we can analyze the content from a purely mechanical aspect, but i don't think we can really dig into the other aspects without arguments arising faster than TOS will permit.
#93 LuisCarlos17f Jul 24, 2015 14:24:27	Playing monsters is like to wearing Halloween costumes. If it is fun, why not?
#94 Hebitsuikaza Jul 24, 2015 15:10:30	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #93) Reius	LuisCarlos17f wrote:
#96 Orethalion Jul 24, 2015 15:19:57	Hebitsuikaza wrote:
#97 Slit518 Jul 24, 2015 16:23:20	They need racial backgrounds as well!
(Reply to #95) arnwolf666	Reius wrote:
(Reply to #98) Reius	arnwolf666 wrote:
#100 thewok Jul 24, 2015 17:07:54	Hebitsuikaza wrote:
#101 Elfcrusher Jul 24, 2015 17:31:18	/fingerOnNose
#102 Slit518 Jul 24, 2015 19:01:19	Slit518 wrote:
#103 shintashi Jul 24, 2015 22:16:55	to say playing monsters will never destroy any games is historically false. I've seen it destroy more than one game; most frequently in 3rd edition. In White Wolf, introducing super heroes destroyed the game, about 5 years after streetfighter had destroyed the game, but when we say "monster',   i think what we really mean is antagonist to whatever the heroes of the story are normally played. In Dark Sun, Thrikreen didn't feel like playing monsters, they just felt weird because the language was impossible and their life span was short. But a Warlock Tiefling from 5th edition, or a Necromancer from 2nd edition with all their powers - now that's a monster, and the game feels different when something wicked this way comes.   Monster races come in 3 varieities guy in rubber suit pointy ears and green blood dominion tank police cat girls   the fourth category is the real monster. This is the guy or girl who actually does monstrous things. 1st edition Assassin and Antipaladin, 2nd edition DM Necromancer or UnderDark Drow, and now you have people who can worship cthulhu. I'm not sure what people were thinking when they decided kid friendly and hentai storylines should mesh. THe fact that you can play "legend of the overfiend" and people aren't allowed to swear escapes my sense of logic.
#104 Brock_Landers Jul 24, 2015 23:09:46	It really is campaign dependant: On this world, Hobgoblins are the dominant Humanoid race.  Spelljammer is groovy for stuff like this.
#105 Reius Jul 25, 2015 1:39:08	"No, I don't want to use psionics in this campaign, so choose a different class."   "In this campaign drow are antagonists, so they can't be PCs. Choose a different race."   "In this campaign hobgoblins are antagonists, so they can't be PCs."   "In this campaign humans are seen as an invading force from another world -- antagonists, you could say. So, you can't choose human as a PC race. Choose something else."   "There is no magic in this campaign, so don't choose a caster class."   "No multiclassing and no feats in this campaign."   "No, you can't use the superhero supplement in this campaign."   "You can use anything in this campaign. Hell, just make up your own classes and let's see what happens."   "No druids in this world."   I still don't see how having options available for those who want them somehow destroys or has any impact on others' campaigns or games. Does me playing a kobold PC wreck other people's fun? When we aren't even playing in the same group and will probably never meet or play together?   Is it normal to play D&D with everything in every book allowed? Personally, I've never found a group like that. In fact, I've never had a DM that was willing to allow psionics (even in 4e!). I'm glad psionics were included, though, because I have used them in my own campaigns. Maybe some DMs just feel that they are obligated to allow everything that's in any published book, or maybe they can't say "no." I don't know, but it doesn't make sense to me and doesn't seem like a reason to not publish options for the people that want them.
(Reply to #102) Reius	Slit518 wrote:
#107 Slit518 Jul 25, 2015 7:33:08	Reius wrote:
(Reply to #103) Elfcrusher	What I really want is an expansion to incorporate fashion design.  I think Mearls & Co. should spend 6-9 months designing and testing rules for fashion designer, photographer, and model character classes, and a whole new subsystem for designing clothes.  They can put their other projects on hold while they work on this.   If you don't like these rules you don't have to use them, but more choices are always better.  AND IF YOU POST YOUR REASON YOU ARE A GROGNARD TRYING TO RUIN MY FUN!!!!
#109 MechaPilot Jul 25, 2015 12:21:21	Elfcrusher wrote:
(Reply to #109) Elfcrusher	MechaPilot wrote:
#111 LuisCarlos17f Jul 25, 2015 14:46:24	The "exotic" races can´t break a game, they may break a setting, that is different. A thri-keen in Ravenloft would be horrible, but not in Dark Sun, a dragonborn wouldn´t fit in Cerilia (Birthright) but do in Eberron.    When I buy the sourcebook, I create the background of the setting like I want. If I wish it, I create a campaing where transformers, the autobots and decepticons, are D&D creatures, living constructs like the warforged, shardminds and modrons, and the main characters from "My little pony" are kentaurides (=female centaurs), and a spelljammer world with races from main sci-fi franchises (star wars, star treck, farscape, andromeda, mass effect, starcraft)...
(Reply to #110) Reius	Elfcrusher wrote:
#113 MechaPilot Jul 25, 2015 15:24:39	Elfcrusher wrote:
(Reply to #113) Elfcrusher	MechaPilot wrote:
#115 Brightmantle Jul 25, 2015 18:47:07	To answer the O.p.'s Question for this thread: Certainly, I'd buy it. One of the things I love about 3X is the ability to play monsterous races. I also bought the Savage Species book for that system, and The 2nd ed. Complete book of Humanoids. Good stuff! It would have been nice if the M.M. for 5e. included rules for playing these races as 3.5 does.
#116 MechaPilot Jul 25, 2015 19:08:41	Elfcrusher wrote:
#117 Elfcrusher Jul 25, 2015 19:46:24	I'm going to somewhat contradict myself with my answers...   MechaPilot wrote:
#118 MechaPilot Jul 25, 2015 20:20:45	Elfcrusher wrote:
(Reply to #115) rampant	Brightmantle wrote:
#120 LuisCarlos17f Jul 26, 2015 0:10:45	A world where evil races are good and viceversa is easy, only with use the doppel cosmology is enough.   And don´t forget you can play "evil races" from World of Warcraft.
#121 Enevhar_Aldarion Jul 26, 2015 0:57:30	I only just skimmed through all the replies, so if someone else already said this, I apologize for repeating.   Basically, I would only buy something like this if it were an integral part of a setting where human and "half" races did not exist, a place where everyone is a "monster" and it is normal for so many different creatures to be mingling together. Otherwise, I do not like "monster" PC races, as I do not like mixing standard D&D races and "monster" races together as PCs, especially when the default alignment for a race is any of the evil alignments.
#122 Elfcrusher Jul 26, 2015 4:38:28	MechaPilot wrote:
#123 Mistwell Jul 26, 2015 8:40:54	Elfcrusher wrote:
#124 Orethalion Jul 26, 2015 8:38:41	Mistwell wrote:
#125 Wuzzard Jul 26, 2015 9:00:41	If you had a poll and asked people if they would like a book on magic ponies for their game you'd probably get a large number of people insisting that their games couldn't survive without more concrete magic pony rules.  You could probably ask the same sort of question and substitute in any number of obscur subjects and get a similar response. Instead of asking questions like "would you like an X" they should have you select your top choices from a list of possible projects they could undertake. Then they would find out what their customers really want most.
#126 Mistwell Jul 26, 2015 9:08:47	Wuzzard wrote:
#127 rampant Jul 26, 2015 9:40:42	Given the popularity FiM brought to magical ponies they might need to double check their poll numbers on the pony thing though.   Are there any good stats for 5e ponies yet?
#128 Wuzzard Jul 26, 2015 10:20:56	Mistwell wrote:
#129 MechaPilot Jul 26, 2015 13:01:05	Elfcrusher wrote:
#130 LuisCarlos17f Jul 26, 2015 13:20:15	* If you don't want a new Savage Species, don´t buy it, but don´t say WotC shouldn´t publish it.   * I could bet for April's Fool we will see a D&D stats for Equestria girls, better kentaurides (female centaurs). And the centaurkins were canon in AD&D, the ha'pony, the gnoat and dorvesh
(Reply to #124) arnwolf666	Orethalion wrote:
#132 Reius Jul 26, 2015 14:23:01	Wuzzard wrote:
#133 Orethalion Jul 26, 2015 14:53:14	arnwolf666 wrote:
#134 MechaPilot Jul 26, 2015 15:04:38	Orethalion wrote:
#135 Shasarak Jul 26, 2015 15:25:33	LuisCarlos17f wrote:
#136 Elfcrusher Jul 26, 2015 15:47:29	I'll add that (as I said at the beginning) if they came out with such a book I'd probably buy it.  Just because I can't not buy a D&D book. And I certainly wouldn't be upset about it, or make angry posts to the forums, or start predicting the imminent demise of D&D, or slander Mike Mearls.   I'd just rather have them work on other things.
#137 MechaPilot Jul 26, 2015 16:10:56	Elfcrusher wrote:
(Reply to #133) arnwolf666	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #137) Elfcrusher	MechaPilot wrote:
#140 MechaPilot Jul 26, 2015 18:35:47	Elfcrusher wrote:
#141 LuisCarlos17f Jul 26, 2015 23:42:00	Do you know? I see a reason to think about monster PCs, the miniatures. If there is a module about skirmishes... we will see warbands of PCs, and some warbands will include monster allies, like monster pets, henchmen and that type of things. Maybe in the future we could see a D&D videogame with NFC figures like Spyro: Skylanders, Disney Infitiny, Nintendo Amiboo or Lego Dimensions. Monster PCs would be a good reason to sell miniatures of giants, dragons or collectable monster pets.
(Reply to #132) rampant	Reius wrote:
#143 Coredump00 Jul 27, 2015 8:36:29	I don't want to buy it, and I don't want it to be produced.    1) It detracts from doing other things I would rather see 2) I think it will lead to 'support' in other products, like having more monster race NPCs in adventures 3) It will become more 'expected' by players and the playerbase in general 4) It will change the general attitude of the game in a way I don't want to see.   So yeah, if WotC was asking for input, I would say 'don't do it'.   That said... if they do it they do it... All sorts of things happen in life without folks asking my permission first. If other folks want it, I understand WotC making it.  The more 'optional' it is portrayed, the better IMO>
#144 DemoMonkey Jul 27, 2015 9:59:41	I'm all in favour of a Savage Species type of book for other people...   So long as it's design, production and publication does not in any way delay, or reduce the quality of, all the other things I want first.
#145 CakeTime Jul 27, 2015 10:26:20	Slit518 wrote:
#146 Mistwell Jul 27, 2015 11:54:50	I guess this is more an issue of opportunity cost.  A poll on this topic would really work best if WOTC asked, "Which of the following products would you prefer we work on next" and then list 20 types of products.  That would show where this kind of product falls on the priority list for respondants, far better than simply asking "is this something you want".   I guess the list could be something like:   1) A large sandbox adventure 2) A book focused on one setting (Greyhawk, Dragon Lance, etc.) 3) Dieties and Demigods 4) Another Monster Book (Fiend Folio/MM 2) 5) A Planar Handbook 6) A Psionics Handbook 7) A book of general race and class options (PHB 2/Complete Adventurer) 8) A Book of Monsters As Races/Classes (Savage Species) 9) An Arms, Equipment, and Magic Items Guide 10) A book of NPCs (Enemies and Allies) 11) A book focusing on a specific Race (Races of Stone, etc..) 12) A book focusing on a type of class (Arcane, Divine, Warrior, Etc.) 13) A Spell Compendium (new spells for all spellcasting classes) 14) A book focusing on a type of environment (Sandstorm, Libris Mortis, Frostburn, Dungeonscape, Cityscape, etc..) 15) A Book focusing on new DM options (DMG 2) 16) A book of challenges (Traps, Puzzles, Dungeon Rooms, Set Pieces) 17) A book focusing on a specific type of creature (iendish Codex, Draconomicon, etc.) 18) A book of short adventures 19) A book focused on a section of a setting (Sword Coast) 20) A Survival Handbook (Dungeon Survival Handbook, Wilderness Survival Guide, etc.)    I guess ias you expand the list, you'd want a ranking system for the survey rather than just one choice. You could rank each product from 1 to 20, or have smething like "Mark 1 for your top choice, 2 for your second best choice, etc.." and let people rank five or even ten total choices (with no rank counting as a zero).     What do you think, is this something you think WOTC should do? And if so, what should the list look like? Should it break up some of these categories, like "Setting book", into more specific line items? Is there a point where the list becomes too unwieldly?    EDIT - I think I will make this it's own thread.. Which I've now done. It can be found here.
#147 Hebitsuikaza Jul 27, 2015 11:43:17	Talking magical ponies,  small talking dragons and talking gryphons and stuff might be fine if it were just put in its own setting.   RPGs are sadly targeting to an older audience. It might be worth something in the long-run to create a setting specifically geared and intended for use by elementary school children that has as little character restriction as necessary and describes everything in a more G-rated cartoonish manner. You don't kill anything, you knock it out. Quests are expected to be pretty linear and combat generally one-sided in favor of the PCs and forgiving. A lot more support and encouragement for social play and non-combat play through rewards, but at the same time generally mantaining the core D&D feel.   But, seriously... I do not and will never get anyone who thinks everything is ruined if someone can play a human with green skin or  red skin or yellow skin with tusks or horns or tails or...   The fact that they are so deadset and arrogant in their belief that everyone is perfectly happy with the choice of boring person with nothing special, bearded smelly, greasy drunk who lives underground, small normal indescript person or super model who is the pinnacle of perfection at everything... And totally disbelieve any sign of evidence that points to the idea that people DO want to play things beyond those choices. That if it is a fantasy game, they want to play a character who has some fantastical elements and is a step more exaggerated in humanity in a different way. Whether that be the wild barbarian who is big and bulky and green and "smashes" things.... or it be an athletic crimson guy who represents all the weird occidental ideas about samurai and mongols... or it be the insane, wild, rubbery and cowardly litle green/yellow funny looking guy to whom everything is new and exciting and interesting and don't quite get normal society...   I mean, if the concept actually demands that someone have a high level power automatically, that's one thing. If it stems from your desire in your fantasy to easily classify people by race, particularly if they have a noncaucassian skin color, and just cut them down on first sight without your morality ever being called into question (in fact, heralded as a champion of goodness for dividing people by race and slaughtering them all for being different before they have a chance to act) then... that says so very much about where you are coming from and why you actually play this game.   And while there are claims that no one is trying to stop or discouraging product that supports such options ever being created and those kinds of being ever being allowed play in public games and being victimized by those who want such options... there are so many comments in this thread that prove that's exactly what you aim to do.
(Reply to #139) Wuzzard	Elfcrusher wrote:
#149 MechaPilot Jul 27, 2015 12:46:29	@Elfcrusher:   Because I really do want to understand your perspective, there is one question that I would greatly appreciate an answer to.  I asked it earlier, but I didn't see a response to it.   MechaPilot wrote:
#150 MechaPilot Jul 27, 2015 19:46:02	DemoMonkey wrote:
#151 MechaPilot Jul 27, 2015 13:04:22	Coredump00 wrote:
#152 Elfcrusher Jul 27, 2015 14:08:47	MechaPilot wrote:
#153 MechaPilot Jul 27, 2015 19:40:53	Elfcrusher wrote:
#154 Wuzzard Jul 27, 2015 21:32:44	Elfcrusher wrote:
#155 MechaPilot Jul 27, 2015 21:37:35	Wuzzard wrote:
#156 ORC_Cricket Jul 27, 2015 23:53:24	We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.   You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct   Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.   Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.     Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.