PHB2 Races = Mos Eisley Cantina

[gribble]

Originally Posted by Klaus

They are descendants of the original elves of a millenia ago, and are a true race. In fact, they call themselves "elves", and most people think of them as "elves".

A friend of mine ran a brief (as in one session ) campaign where true "elves" were pure fey creatures, uncomprehensible to creatures of the physical world - sort of like Exalted's fair folk. The PC races - eladrin, "elves", half-elves and drow - were elves that had taken on aspects of the physical world. Essentially, the eladrin had taken on aspects of magic, elves nature, half-elves cities and drow darkness.

These elves became corrupted by these aspects of the physical world in the dawn of pre-history - essentially they became trapped, forgot their origins and became true-breeding races.

Seemed like a pretty cool concept to me.

[Orius]

Whoa long thread. I hate jumping into long threads, too damn much to read. And quote for that matter; you quote a post, 3 pages later and all your points have been made, and there's 5 pages more to go.

Yet small threads die quiet deaths. Ah, Internet how I hate thee.

To be honest, while I'm not all that keen on the flavor of D&D WotC's been pushing for the last few years, I don't really care too much about the individual races. Besides, there's probably some copyright/IP issues here anyway; WotC can use new(er) made up races as brand identity, where they wouldn't be able to do that with elves and dwarves as easily. WotC sure as hell can't copyright elves, dwarves, and goblins or put them under IP since they're just too common in fantasy/folklore etc.

As a DM though, I am in my right to ban things. For one, I might not want a list of playable races/classes as long as my arm or longer for reasons of balance. There's no way I can know how ALL of this stuff is going to work together, and trying to run a campaign that includes everything and the kitchen sink can get unwieldy. If I want that, I'll run Synnibar.

Also, with something like the PHB2, I don't necessarily want to just plop something into my world that might not have existed before. That makes it harder for me and the other players to suspend disbelief. If a player wants to get cranky because he wants to run something out of a splat or even core book he just bought, let him volunteer to DM for a while. Another reason is that I might not have seen the book in question, and I want to have a rules reference so I know things are being run more or less legally -- some players aren't above trying to pull a fast one on the DM.

Basically, when a campaign starts, the DM needs to be upfront about what races and classes are allowed, and stay consistant. The players should READ whatever handouts the DMs give them beforehand to this effect (though the DM should really make an effort to keep the page count down, because players won't read more than 2 plages of this stuff. K.I.S.S. applies here). After the campaign starts, a player shouldn't assume a DM is going to allow any new race/class combo that appears in a new book.

I liked the approach 3e OA took in the book's intro; that the book was presented for the DM to pick and choose which elements he liked for a setting. One problem I have with the whole PHB/DMG/MMx setup is that some players just assume because it's in the book, it has to be allowed. That's always been a problem really, but in previous editions, new stuff was labeled as "Optional. Check with your DM first." 3.x had Rule 0 which was bascially to this effect. I don't know how 4e is handling this. And as someone already said, 4e's been mixing classic and newer stuff up in multiple book releases which might complicate the issue.

[Wraith Form]

Originally Posted by Danzauker

Hope they listen to you!!! I'd like to see Wookies in PHBIII.

You apparently haven't seen the shifter, then.

[kenmarable]

I think a subtle but important distinction to me isn't that my campaigns have to include EVERYTHING from every book, they only have to include ANYTHING from every book. If none of the players have any interest in playing a shifter, and I have no interest in including them in my world, then there's no need to worry about them. If someone changes their mind later, we can work together to see if we can come up with a plan.

That has served me best for all these years. We've had campaigns where certain races weren't included, but on an interpersonal level, it's always gone smoothly when the DM (me or someone else) included the players in on those decisions. In fact, for us, the players were far more engaged if it was more collaborative than dictated.

Don't take this as saying what is goodfun and badfun, of course. I'm just saying flexibility and collaboration with the players has always worked for us in the dozen or more campaigns I've been in. Plus, out of the 30 or so people I've regularly gamed with throughout my life, we never had someone who was disappointed that they couldn't play the character they wanted to play. After all, it's a game, I think people should have fun even if we model a make believe world with only 98% accuracy.

So I have nothing wrong with exclusions. I just dislike playing in games where exclusions are dictated even against player wishes (especially in the "Sorry you were killed just for showing up in the tavern, you should have known better." sort of way).

[Mournblade94]

When I am Playing D&D I will play in games with whatever the DM wants.

I only run fantasy games (with the exception of star wars, and Dark Sun) with races based on myth and history, though I have always allowed tieflings, assimar, and genasi. Pretty much Tolkein races from 1st edition with the Forgotten realms added in.

This does not mean I disapprove of other players liking other races, but I have never allowed an arbitrary race with no basis in myth made by a game designer for 'cool'.

Even if I played 4e, I could only ever see dragonborn as a monster race for NPC's.

Part of the problem I have with 4e is that 'designer' races are core. I prefer 'classic' races. I never minded expansion books wiht new races (though I rarely ever used them) but I don't like 'designer' races to be core.

This has never been a problem with any game I have run.

[Hellzon]

Originally Posted by Wraith Form

You apparently haven't seen the shifter, then.

The Shifter on that fabled picture that spawned the thread looks more like an Ewok. My only beef with it.

(And we know WOTC can draw non-ewok Shifters. There are perfectly good ones in the MM and in the PHB2 Shifter entry.)

[rjdafoe]

The great thing about new races that alot of people do not seem to think about is that it is an oportunity to maybe change your world a little bit. Who cares that there were no Shifters in your world before? Is your world fully explored? When the players go into an area that has not been explored before, they can encounter any of the races that you did not incude in your world design. Sure, there is no reason to all of a sudden place Shifters in your major city, but the fact is, they CAN exist in any world.

In our own world, we are still finding marine life that we thought was extinct or that we have never seen before. The great thing about the D&D worlds is that (for the most part) the world is now where near explored.

There could even be a city of Shifters that your player characters expose to the general world. For role players, this seems to me to be a huge role playing opportunity. Now that they are exposed, you can then deal with the opportunities (or not) of integrating them the rest of your world as they travel to the cities/villages that your players have already been to.

[Obryn]

Originally Posted by rjdafoe

The great thing about new races that alot of people do not seem to think about is that it is an oportunity to maybe change your world a little bit. Who cares that there were no Shifters in your world before? Is your world fully explored? When the players go into an area that has not been explored before, they can encounter any of the races that you did not incude in your world design. Sure, there is no reason to all of a sudden place Shifters in your major city, but the fact is, they CAN exist in any world. In our own world, we are still finding marine life that we thought was extinct or that we have never seen before. The great think about the D&D worlds is that (for the most part) the world is now where near explored. There could even be a city of Shifters that your player characters expose to the general world. For role players, this seems to me to be a huge role playing opportunity. Now that they are exposed, you can then deal with the opportunities (or not) of integrating them the rest of your world as they travel to the cities/villages that your players have already been to.

Yep, this is how I take it.

The world is a big place. Even if, say, shifters are unknown in the main region of play, I can't imagine that they couldn't exist on other continents. Even if not many people travel around that way, a shifter PC could easily be one of the few who would.

In lower-magic campaigns, I think this is even more possible. After all, it wasn't all too many years ago that the writings of Marco Polo were considered basically factual and accurate.

-O

[Barastrondo]

Originally Posted by mhacdebhandia

Most people - even most dragonborn or gnolls - aren't adventurers. Sure, the average gnoll might be a subsistence hunter who's not afraid to raid a human or half-elf farmer's land and make off with her cattle to be slaughtered for his tribe, if most gnolls live a nomadic, predatory lifestyle, but that just makes him the equivalent of that human farmer - compared to a gnoll warlord who stirs the tribe to battle, he's not so much.

A good point (and an excellent example, by the way). One of the things that I find most interesting about actual fantasy races and cultures is finding out all the little things about them: what they do all day, what sort of crafts they indulge in, what they eat, what their idea of music is, and so on. Now, I don't really approve of giant infodumps as a way of beating this knowledge into players' heads, but I like a race that has plausible stuff to do away from the adventure.

This is certainly an area where tastes vary, but to me it doesn't destroy the mystique of a race or culture to see them while they work or eat or haggle. Familiarity may cut out a touch of the exoticism, or even breed contempt depending on the viewer, but it makes a setting feel more fantastic without sacrificing plausibility. If you see a few tiefling children playing a game of "Who's the Ogre?" in the street, yeah, it does make tieflings seem less of a hardcore sinister race, but it also does a lot to broaden them beyond the stereotype.

[Scribble]

Originally Posted by Mournblade94

I only run fantasy games (with the exception of star wars, and Dark Sun) with races based on myth and history, though I have always allowed tieflings, assimar, and genasi. Pretty much Tolkein races from 1st edition with the Forgotten realms added in.

This does not mean I disapprove of other players liking other races, but I have never allowed an arbitrary race with no basis in myth made by a game designer for 'cool'.

That's fine, to each his own... But it seems somewhat limiting to me.

I like new races because they give people the opportunity to explore new ideas, and new societies. To create new stories and legends.

Do you include these other races as monsters? Or are the ONLY races existing on your world the tolkien ones?

If so, why are the players banned from them? What does that achieve?

Also why the difference between Starwars and D&D? What makes creatures not "based on myth and legend" ok in one format and not the other?

One last question... do you research each race to see where the new "designer" races might have been inspired from? (After all Tolkien's races aren't exactly the original myths and legends they came from... Where did Hobbits come from anyway?)

I'm not trying to knock your games. Just honestly curious.

[Mournblade94]

Originally Posted by Scribble

That's fine, to each his own... But it seems somewhat limiting to me.

I like new races because they give people the opportunity to explore new ideas, and new societies. To create new stories and legends.

Fair enough, but I think new races often suffer from what I like to call the STAR TREK culture syndrome. New races (and yes older ones already long established) tend to exagerate one particular human cultural element (Ferengi, merchantilism; Vulcan, Intellect; Elves, longing for the old world; Dwarves, Industry) that there really is not that much to explore.

I cannot comment on the PHBII Races, but the Goliath reminded me of the Half Giant from Dark sun, and the Deva I am sure is virtually the Aasimar.

Originally Posted by Scribble

Do you include these other races as monsters? Or are the ONLY races existing on your world the tolkien ones?

I can only speak towards 3rd edition or before with this:

This is difficult to answer because obviously illithids exist but no one can play them. So limiting race to those listed in Players handbook or Expansion books, I usually limit the races to the PHB races of 3rd edition and the Forgotten Realms Campaign. If a new variant of one of the PHB races appears in an expansion I will usually allow that as well (eg. Ice Elves, frost gnomes.) If a new variant goes against a paradigm of those races I will usually disallow it (eg. wild dwarf). If a new race is a 'designer' race I might include them in an adventure but generally will not make them playable (eg. raptorans).

Originally Posted by Scribble

If so, why are the players banned from them? What does that achieve?

Simply it achieves the 'classic' tone of the campaign. Note I am usually much looser when it comes to sci fi mileus.

Originally Posted by Scribble

Also why the difference between Starwars and D&D? What makes creatures not "based on myth and legend" ok in one format and not the other?

Star Wars is an established universe where all of those races have been written in with an established niche. If it is Ok for the written material or movies I will allow it in the game. I do not in any way consider Star Wars Science Fiction. It is fantasy through and through. I would not however let someone play an ELF in STAR WARS SAGA.

Originally Posted by Scribble

One last question... do you research each race to see where the new "designer" races might have been inspired from? (After all Tolkien's races aren't exactly the original myths and legends they came from... Where did Hobbits come from anyway?)

I certainly do. Hobbits were a 'designer' race by tolkein. They have no real root in legend. They were meant to represent the pastoral life of england.

Anyway, I LOVE to figure out from where races are derived. many 'designer' races have a mythical component, (Goliath, Shapeshifter) but I don't necessarily like the amalgamation enough to include them. I am a good researcher so I usually dig up interesting tid bits.

In their proper place (which if I am DM I make that determination) such as Spirit Folk for Oriental Adventures I allow those races.

Originally Posted by Scribble

I'm not trying to knock your games. Just honestly curious.

Fair enough. There is no point to me posting if I am not prepared to expand or explain my point of view.

[Scribble]

Originally Posted by Mournblade94

Fair enough, but I think new races often suffer from what I like to call the STAR TREK culture syndrome. New races (and yes older ones already long established) tend to exagerate one particular human cultural element (Ferengi, merchantilism; Vulcan, Intellect; Elves, longing for the old world; Dwarves, Industry) that there really is not that much to explore.

Well I agree with you to a point. The races do in fact tend to exagerate one (or possibly two) particular human traits. Essentially they are that trait personified. I dissagree though that there isn't a lot to explore, especially when you combine them with other races. I think the differing perspectives hitting up against eachother can tell a lot of interesting stories. Akin to the Spock, Bones, Kirk triumverate representation of the human mind at work.

It's one of the things that facinates me about D&D... That there's in a way another telling of the free will vrs determinism idea in the game.


I can only speak towards 3rd edition or before with this:

Simply it achieves the 'classic' tone of the campaign. Note I am usually much looser when it comes to sci fi mileus.

By classic you mean Tolkienesque, or original D&Desque?

Again opinions and tastes vary with everyone, so I have no beef with your choice in your games. Just after like 20 years of me n the elf fight the orcs... I personally want to explore other stories.

Star Wars is an established universe where all of those races have been written in with an established niche. If it is Ok for the written material or movies I will allow it in the game. I do not in any way consider Star Wars Science Fiction. It is fantasy through and through. I would not however let someone play an ELF in STAR WARS SAGA.

They add new races to Star Wars though... (I also don't consider it sci-fi)

I get the impression you want certain games to emulate certain stories. Fair enough I guess. I dissagree that D&D by default should mulate any one particular work though.

I certainly do. Hobbits were a 'designer' race by tolkein. They have no real root in legend. They were meant to represent the pastoral life of england.

Anyway, I LOVE to figure out from where races are derived. many 'designer' races have a mythical component, (Goliath, Shapeshifter) but I don't necessarily like the amalgamation enough to include them. I am a good researcher so I usually dig up interesting tid bits.

In their proper place (which if I am DM I make that determination) such as Spirit Folk for Oriental Adventures I allow those races.

And this is exactly why I dissagree it should emulate any one particular work. Everyone has different ideas about what the "proper place" for a race is. Most of the races even the "designer" ones, aren't really anymore designer then the other (except for human, since wel that's the only race that really exists...) They're all just myths and legends given form.

I say let D&D accomidate anyone's personal view of a fantasy world, rather then push us into one viewpoint. (I like Tolkien... He's probably the biggest reason I started reading, started liking fantasy a lot, and probably started gaming. But I like other authors as well.)

Fair enough. There is no point to me posting if I am not prepared to expand or explain my point of view.

I only said that really because sometimes when I dissagree with people on the boards, and want to talk about it, I get the feeling they think I'm trying to change their point of view or something... When really I just enjoy talking about different ideas and views.

[SilvercatMoonpaw2]

Originally Posted by Gargoyle

While I respect that people want to play something different from themselves, I also think that these same players often play non-human races just as if they were pointy eared (or short, or tall) humans anyway. You can play a human from a different culture and be interesting, from a roleplaying point of view.

Playing a non-human race purely for the appearance actually has a use that cannot ever be fulfilled by a human of any kind: a different physiological perspective. You play a race with good senses so you can think about having a wider view of the world, you play a race stronger than a human so you can imagine their ability to move objects with ease. An enforced racial culture/outlook does not help, and in fact this concept works best if played as a human in another skin.

[Nivenus]

As for how weird and rare oddball races such as the PHB2 races (and tieflings) should be, I have something to say on that.

I agree that many races should feel exotic and strange given their origins, though it really depends partially on your setting. After all, dragonborn are far more common in core than they are in FR (or are likely to be in Eberron) and genasi are all but unheard of outside of FR (just as warforged are extremely rare outside of Eberron). But some basic assumptions can probably be made in regards to the core setting.

Being exotic and rare doesn't mean, as others have pointed out, that all the race does is be exotic and pretty. While a tiefling shopkeeper might seem out of place, it's not exactly unexpected. After all, even an ostracized race has to make a living.

Speaking of which - do core tieflings remind anyone besides me of Medieval Jews? It must be the whole marginalized, unwanted, and shuffled into ghettos sort of thing. Not to mention the fact that they have a diaspora as part of their backstory. Granted, there are differences. After all, Jews aren't the scions of an infernal bloodline. Tieflings are. But it'd be kind of interesting to see a DM write in tieflings as having the same role as Medieval Jews - that is to say, bankers.

I don't have the PHB2 yet so I can't say for sure how the new core races fit in precisely, but I can guess based on what the FRPG says. Devas seem to be at least as rare as tieflings, probably more so. They also seem to lack any kind of genuine community, being more of scattered clumps than a tightly knit network. One can expect that, in the core, there is no archetypical deva commoner, since there don't seem to be enough of them for such an archetype to exist. Their backstory seems to indicate they might be drawn to religion then.

As for shifters, the FRPG lays it out pretty clearly (as does the MM to some extent) that they're often misinterpreted as lycanthropes. I think it can be expected than that, out of all the PC races, they're probably the most loathed and are probably driven to lives of crime or solitude. It'd be unlikely to see shifters in any kind of role with prestige, though I'm sure more than a few shifter commoners exist, probably getting the roles nobody else wants (like butchery, execution, or grave digging).

Can't speak much to goliaths, though they seem to fit into the same role as human barbarians. Same goes for half-orcs really, though the latter's backstory varies so much in 4e that you could really imagine just about any role for them.

[Mournblade94]

Originally Posted by Scribble

By classic you mean Tolkienesque, or original D&Desque?

Lets say the original established races from AD&D.

Originally Posted by Scribble

Again opinions and tastes vary with everyone, so I have no beef with your choice in your games. Just after like 20 years of me n the elf fight the orcs... I personally want to explore other stories.

I have many many D&D characters, and I would have to say 85% of them are (or were) humans. As a DM I have had a Huge variety of players play non humans, but for me I need to really be immersed in a character. I can play any character really, but if I am going to be really immersed in a character there is a narrow range that allows me to do that (as a player, not DM)

I find I can really only get immersed in humans, Elves, half elves, and some bestial natural races like Wolfen.

I find it difficult to get immersed in greenskins, stunties, and stupid (intellectual capacity) races. I am a much better writer than actor.

Originally Posted by Scribble

They add new races to Star Wars though... (I also don't consider it sci-fi)

I get the impression you want certain games to emulate certain stories. Fair enough I guess. I dissagree that D&D by default should emulate any one particular work though.

I am OK with any weird strange race in star wars, but if the writers added lets say a VAMPIRE race, not just ability but say they transposed Lestat into Star Wars it would bother me. I Would not like to see a band of orcs attacking my jedi either.

your impression is 100% correct. I like to emulate certain stories or environments. I realize people want more and well that is fine.

Originally Posted by Scribble

And this is exactly why I dissagree it should emulate any one particular work. Everyone has different ideas about what the "proper place" for a race is. Most of the races even the "designer" ones, aren't really anymore designer then the other (except for human, since wel that's the only race that really exists...) They're all just myths and legends given form.

Its all good. In just about any game system I play, the main character I am going to have in it anyway is a human or a very close derivitive.

Originally Posted by Scribble

I only said that really because sometimes when I dissagree with people on the boards, and want to talk about it, I get the feeling they think I'm trying to change their point of view or something... When really I just enjoy talking about different ideas and views.

I know what you mean. I respond on message boards as I would in the game store. For some reason people seem extra defensive on message boards.

[jgsugden]

Really: There are 4 core races: Human, elf, dwarf and halfling. Everything else has been met with some resistance:

• Half orc - Most people object to the most prevalent origen story for these guys: Rape.
• Half elf - Ditto.
• Gnome - Redundant halflings, or objections to garden gnome comparisons.
• Warforged - I/O Error. Does not compute.
• Genasi - You can't choose to have cool angst - you either have it or you don't. Choosing to be a tiefling doesn't get you there.
• Drow - ditto.
• Shifter - Any race that gets in trouble for losing an F is poorly named. Many people fear using a class that will get them accused of being a furry.
• Goliath - Many people consider this race to be unrelateable. Additionally, the race has been described as bland by many people.
• Kender - Trying too hard to simultaneously be halflings and not be halflings.
• Deva - Are we not men? At least they get one thing right: People that do bad things end up as furries. Too weird. Purple people? They better not meet the green people, or there is gonna by some real sash ripping battles!

I'm not saying I agree with the above, but it does show the core problem: Once you get past the primary 4 classes, everything else will get some real resistance.

If I were in charge, I'd have gone with 7 races - human (which could get a +2 to any single stat), and 6 different races that each hd a bonus to a particular stat... perhaps:

Orc: Strength
Dwarf: Constitution
Elf: Dexterity
Eladrin: Intelligence
Gnome: Wisdom
Halfling: Charisma

Then, I'd add a phase to character creation called education that gave you a +2 bonus to an attribute of your choice (maximum 20 at 1st level).

That would allow any PC race to be any class, while still giving the right feel to each race.

As for all of the other races: Keep them out of PHBs. Put them in Dragon or campaign Books, but not in PHBs. We don't need to give the perception that Goliaths, Tieflings and Dragonborn are core races.

[Obryn]

Originally Posted by Mournblade94

I Would not like to see a band of orcs attacking my jedi either.

...Gammoreans?

-O

[AllisterH]

Um, I'm away from my PHB2 at the moment, but doesn't the entry on the races EXPLICITLY mention "These races are more uncommon than the PHB1 and that the normal citizenry might only interact with one every couple of years"?

How does that equate to a 10 page thread?

re: Gnomes

I don't really consider that a reboot. Basically, the 4e gnome ditches all the added "tinker stuff" that 2e/3e brought in and gets back to the illusionist angle of the 1e gnome...Not sure that would be considered a reboot or a reimagining...

[Doctor Proctor]

Originally Posted by AllisterH

I don't really consider that a reboot. Basically, the 4e gnome ditches all the added "tinker stuff" that 2e/3e brought in and gets back to the illusionist angle of the 1e gnome...Not sure that would be considered a reboot or a reimagining...

There was an interview that some guy did with a couple of the designers and posted a link here on EnWorld. In it, they talked about the Gnome and why it was in the PHB 2.

Basically, they said that they weren't quite sure what to do with the race to make them different (subtext: different form halfling I'm guessing). They chose to wait until the PHB 2 to get more of a feel for what they should do, and what they came up with is that they should always be a little sneaky, regardless of class.

So this way, if you have Gnome Rogue, he can turn invisible. If it's a Gnome Wizard, he can turn invisible, etc... I'm guessing that some of the racial feats for them in the power books will augment that power, just as many of the other races have had their racial abilities augmented in power books.

[Scribe Ineti]

Originally Posted by Mad Zagyg

It's just so RIDICULOUS! It's like the Mos Eisley Cantina threw up all over the D&D universe.

You haven't looked in the Monster Manual, have you? D&D has far more wacky monsters and alien-looking stuff than the 15 races offered up as PC races.

Obvious comment of the day: Just cause there are 15 PC races, doesn't mean you have to allow all 15 in your campaign.