PHB2 Races = Mos Eisley Cantina

[Hexmage-EN]

Guys, guess what! I just found out that Giff are in the PHB3!

[Kask]

Originally Posted by La Bete

heh.

You want a freak show? Complete Humanoids Handbook (2e).

Actually not. In 1st/2nd Ed "humanoids" were monsters. Demi-humans were for PCs...

[Obryn]

Every race in 4e was a race in 3e, although some have been changed a bit. And while I'd love to say the weird races started in 3e, they really didn't. (Although, in fairness, 3e still takes the cake for the number of downright bizarre races which can be played by PCs...)

I've been checking out a lot of the Wilderlands material, and really, folks - bizarre doesn't even begin to cover it. You have transparent-fleshed ghuls, "bardik" who make good ... um ... bards, cat people, lion people, duck people, hawk people, sun people, moon people, star people, cavemen, smarter cavemen, purple dragon people, red-skinned people, a whole race of amazons, houri (basically succubi), and so on. And all the many-hued human races - common viridians are kinda green, people with atlantlan blood are kinda red, people up north are kinda blue, descendants of the dragon lords are kinda purple and often a bit scaly...

Weird races aren't new. They go all the way back to the earliest settings.

-O

[Obryn]

Originally Posted by Kask

Actually not. In 1st/2nd Ed "humanoids" were monsters. Demi-humans were for PCs...

In 1e, absolutely.

In 2e, the Complete Book of Humanoids would tend to disagree with you.

-O

[SpydersWebbing]

I personally like the addition of all these races. Fantasy is not just Tolkien, and even as a Tolkien fan I can accept that.


Seriously, lighten up guys.

[Kask]

Originally Posted by Obryn

I've been checking out a lot of the Wilderlands material, and really, folks - bizarre doesn't even begin to cover it. You have transparent-fleshed ghuls, "bardik" who make good ... um ... bards, cat people, lion people, duck people, hawk people, sun people, moon people, star people,
Weird races aren't new. They go all the way back to the earliest settings

Wilderlands wasn't a TSR/WotC product. No more relevant than some DMs house rules.

[Celebrim]

I've had this problem back since 1st edition.

Norker? Why do we need norkers? Flinds? Why can't they just be big gnolls? Why do we have eight species of ugly, slightly stupid, monsterous demi-humans? Wouldn't just one work out fine? Why do we need like fourteen elvish sub-races? Couldn't we just get by with one or two, and assume that otherwise they differ by skin, hair color, and other superficial matters of appearance? Just exactly how did all of these different races get created? Do I have to develop 200 different origin stories?

I think that if you assume that the world really does have 200 different humanoid races, that you can't avoid having a science fiction feel to it, and probably are going to end up with something like Tekumel where all the races on one planet really does have a science fiction origin to it. You can either embrace that or you can say, "Not in my campaign. I'll take this small subset, thank you very much." But I don't think you can really blame WotC for wanting to broaden the palette. Nothing is more certain than the fact that each of us would consider a very different subset of humanoids to be the 'cool ones'.

I'm not sure that the problem the OP has isn't just with the art of 4th edition. The art of 4th edition has a very distinctive 'comic book' feel that is very different from the high fantasy artwork of 2e or the primitive looking woodcuts and simple line art of 1e. I think that the 'comic book' feel unintentionally or not gives 4e a very 'X-Men' style mutant superhero feel.

[Estlor]

I like variety. As a DM, I wish more people would play humans, but variety keeps things interesting. Especially since the baseline assumption in 4E is that humans aren't the dominant species.

In my homebrew world I allow 12 PC races, but the setting emphasizes cosmopolitan societies where the various races mix. If "romance" and "half breeds" cause you problems, I solved it by splitting the races into three main groups - hume, gob, and "other." Humes can breed and are all the dominantly human-looking races (human, dwarf, elf, shadar-kai, draenei). Gobs are all the slightly monstrous races (bugbear, goblin, hobgoblin, minotaur, moogle). "Other" is a catch-all for races that don't have sufficient evolutionary differentiation - dragonborn (who vary like chromatic dragons do) and warforged (who don't mate/reproduce).

So far, the two campaigns I'm involved in (one I run, one I play in) have this sort of breakdown:
Human x2
Eladrin
Drow
Halfling

Elf x2
Eladrin
Dragonborn
Tiefling

Eh, play what you want to play, don't play what you don't. It's all optional.

[Reynard]

I guess the real question (and this isn't really limited to 4E, by any stretch) is whether the DM is justified in telling the player who just spent $30 on the PHB2 or whatever, "No. You may not play your Goliath Warden. Those things don't fit in my campaign."

Having variety available to good. Options almost always are. But as options, any element -- whether Core or "core" -- is subject to inclusion or exclusion by the DM.

As a side question, what if a player doesn't want a race or class or whatever included because of his/her preferences?

[Mallus]

Originally Posted by Reynard

As a side question, what if a player doesn't want a race or class or whatever included because of his/her preferences?

That player should learn to be accommodating. It makes life, and gaming, easier.

[Kobold Avenger]

Originally Posted by ferratus

I just can't get over the whole "sure you're descended from ultimate evil who betrayed the gods who provide us succor and seek to enslave us and suck out all of our souls to fuel their war against goodness itself, but you've been our neighbours for awhile now so we know you're good people" backstory for tieflings. They just shouldn't be common inhabitants of most small towns, with one operating your local general store in Winterhaven. It really takes the vinegar out of what made tieflings cool in the first place, namely that they're a bad seed. Seeing tieflings like this reminds me of a death metal fan who has become an accountant. Sure they might still have the long hair and have blasphemous tattoos under his pressed white shirt, but he's still an accountant.

The PHB describes there being a bunch of aristocratic Tiefling nobles and Tiefling merchant houses. I don't know about the others of you, but I know some would think about the more negative stereotypes of "Italian (or Chinese or some other ethnic group) Merchant House". They have a lot of money, they're certainly well-accepted in society, it may be profitable to deal with them, but it certainly carries it's risks.

And I know death metal fans that works at a call center or repairs computers for a living. Not every death metal fan is unemployed or works in construction.

[Obryn]

Originally Posted by Kask

Wilderlands wasn't a TSR/WotC product. No more relevant than some DMs house rules.

No, it wasn't published by TSR/WotC, but I think it's a good deal more relevant than a set of house rules. It demonstrates that strange races have held an appeal in published products for 30 years or so; it's not a new phenomenon or a new development that WotC just invented for 3e. They're publishing to an existing market, not inventing it. (Of course, TSR made svirfneblin a playable race, and I think elemental-summoning gnomes are a great deal more bizarre than dragonborn.)

-O

[Dragonbait]

Originally Posted by Celebrim

I've had this problem back since 1st edition.
Norker? Why do we need norkers? *snipped for the sake of space*

Agreed, and it's a common complaint amongst many people that has gone on for some time. Eberron was a setting that actually tried to address this and state that there were NO subraces (later books subverted this when they tried to include subraces from Races of Stone/Wild/etc). An elf is and elf. Growing up by a grove does not mutate them into some new subrace. A drow is an elven cousin but no longer just an elf subrace. Of course, some of the most exotic elements of D&D came from Eberron too (warforged, lightning rails, and so on).

Originally Posted by Celebrim

I don't think you can really blame WotC for wanting to broaden the palette. Nothing is more certain than the fact that each of us would consider a very different subset of humanoids to be the 'cool ones'.

WoTC is just the company that makes the game that a lot of people play and (arguably) a lot of other games based their original design off of D&D. That's why they are being blamed. Many think D&D is very limited and unimaginative in their race design. When DDO came out a number of non-table top playing reviewers complained about the race design aside from the Warforged (humans in a funhouse mirror was what several people used) and considered things too bland. They -wanted- the exotic.

Originally Posted by Celebrim

not sure that the problem the OP has isn't just with the art of 4th edition. The art of 4th edition has a very distinctive 'comic book' feel that is very different from the high fantasy artwork of 2e or the primitive looking woodcuts and simple line art of 1e. I think that the 'comic book' feel unintentionally or not gives 4e a very 'X-Men' style mutant superhero feel.

This, IMO, started in 3E. It's when the images of the books began to just be of characters, or characters fighting monsters. You no longer saw the environment and rarely saw characters NOT in combat. 4E and Pathfinder just continues the trend.

[La Bete]

Originally Posted by Kask

Actually not. In 1st/2nd Ed "humanoids" were monsters. Demi-humans were for PCs...

Bwuh?

Complete Humanoids Handbook
2e TSR product
Provided playable(?) monster races for PCs.
Like Wemics

Not sure what was unclear about that.

Kind regards,

[Kask]

Originally Posted by Obryn

No, it wasn't published by TSR/WotC, but I think it's a good deal more relevant than a set of house rules.

Naw, all kinds of crap was spewed by 3rd party pubs back then. The vast majority of groups didn't use it.

[Hussar]

Originally Posted by Kask

Wilderlands wasn't a TSR/WotC product. No more relevant than some DMs house rules.

Try Mystara then. That's certainly a TSR product. Pretty much all the races he named off above appear there as well. You got dog people, cat people, flying squirrel people (phanatons), and that's just off the top of my head.

Or, perhaps you are of the opinion that B/E D&D isn't really D&D either?

Originally Posted by Reynard

I guess the real question (and this isn't really limited to 4E, by any stretch) is whether the DM is justified in telling the player who just spent $30 on the PHB2 or whatever, "No. You may not play your Goliath Warden. Those things don't fit in my campaign."

Having variety available to good. Options almost always are. But as options, any element -- whether Core or "core" -- is subject to inclusion or exclusion by the DM.

As a side question, what if a player doesn't want a race or class or whatever included because of his/her preferences?

Not touching this one with a ten foot pole. I'll just get myself in trouble again. I'll just leave one thought. A D&D group is just that. A GROUP. A collection of people who (hopefully) are working together to have a good time. Each group will operate differently under assumptions and agreements both spoken and unspoken that are distinct that group. Trying to say one way or another whether or not a particular element should always be allowed, or whether the GM or players should always have veto power just doesn't work. You cannot make such broad generalizations because each group is simply too unique.

[Wolfwood2]

Originally Posted by Kask

I don't have a problem with a player choosing any balanced race. The PC may be lynched and burned at the stake the 1st time they enter a town but that's the players choice not the DMs.

Wait, what? Did you seriously type that?

I can picture it now. The DM says, "Sorry your PC got lynched, man, but it's totally not my fault. I don't control the world or determine how NPCs react or anything like that. I'm just a channeler, through which the personalities and beliefs of the NPCs flow. I'm just playing my world, man! I'm just playing my world in character."

Gah.

[JeffB]

Originally Posted by doctorhook

3E was at least as bad as 4E is for providing all kinds of "circus freak" races..

This-

Where is my half fiend/half flumph with a swarm template purple dragon of cormyr mystic theurge?

For my part- I stick to classic D&D races- Not even any half orcs/elves in my homebrews.

This has always been a problem though in D&D IME- even prior to 1E we always had some "new kid" who wanted to play an Anti Paladin albino "melnibonean", or Samurai Elf or something else equally silly (IMO). They were usually Saturday Morning Martial Arts and BTB Arduin fans as well. I just learned to avoid them over the years

[Mallus]

Originally Posted by Wolfwood2

Wait, what? Did you seriously type that?

I think he was trying to be provocative.

[Greg K]

Originally Posted by dmccoy1693

Hopefully you can find a place there like myself and so many others have.

For this to happen for me, Pathfinder would have to change dramatically from the preview versions. Like 4e, the designers of Pathfinder are heading in the wrong direction for my tastes, but there might be a few things worth stealing.