PHB2 Races = Mos Eisley Cantina

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

You do have to use gnomes, though. That is REQUIRED!

[Gunpowder]

Originally Posted by Lurks-no-More

Beg your pardon?

Tolkien automatically means high quality for him apparently.
I cant fault him if tolkien fantasy is his favorite but quality is independent of whether he likes it or not.

[Branduil]

Originally Posted by Whizbang Dustyboots

You do have to use gnomes, though. That is REQUIRED!

Well, naturally.

You have to use something to test the catapults, after all.

[Klaus]

Originally Posted by Mad Zagyg

Resistor, you speak in FACTS.

It is much easier to add exotic flavors to a soup than it is to remove them once they are mixed in.

To a soup, yes.

But we're talking about roleplaying games, here.

And in that media, it's FAR more easy to remove something than to add something. Don't like tieflings? They don't exist in the campaign world. You'll be losing what, 5 pages of the PHB?

The group I'm DMing has
2x humans
1x tiefling
1x dragonborn

The group I play in has
4x humans
1x half-elf
1x dwarf

In the latter, the DM chose, for story reasons, that elves and eladrin were extinct in the world.

[Obryn]

Originally Posted by resistor

1) Everything Is Core

You see, once again I think there's a problem here with definitions. Specifically, with conflating two different definitions of "Core."

One interpretation of "core" is basically "these are the books you need in order to play the game." By this definition, the 4e PHB, DMG, and MM are the "core"

Another, separate definition of core is "this is setting-neutral and can be used in any campaign." (Or, if you prefer, "this uses the implied setting.")

4e's PHB2 is a core supplement in the same way that 3e's PHB2 is a core supplement - that is, in the second sense, not the first. It's not core in the sense of a book that's required for play - and neither will be DMG2, MM2, PHB3, and so on.

-O

[mhacdebhandia]

Originally Posted by Mad Zagyg

THIS is Dungeons & Dragons?

Yep. Tolkien. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[Doctor Proctor]

Originally Posted by Klaus

The group I play in has
4x humans
1x half-elf
1x dwarf

In the latter, the DM chose, for story reasons, that elves and eladrin were extinct in the world.

Then how do you have half-elves?

[Scribble]

Originally Posted by Doctor Proctor

Then how do you have half-elves?

Necrophillia?

[Branduil]

Originally Posted by Doctor Proctor

Then how do you have half-elves?

Ever read Jurassic Park?

[Miyaa]

If I ever DM again, I will remove the concept of the half-race concept for clarity. Now, I'm not sure if I would include the concept of bloodlines, that is you aren't a particular race, but you may have had a particular race in your blood/ancestry (i.e. dragon bloodlines). I do have to admit though that the half-orcs artwork in PHB2 are the most attractive I've seen since the Kingdom of Kalamar's artwork for the female half-hobgoblin.

One thing I have noticed that I like about the 4th edition races is that by and large they are weaker than their 3rd edition counterparts, so that you don't need to factor an ECL to how common, uncommon or rare a race should be. Dopplegangers are a prime example. They're basically the Changlings of 3rd edition Eberron, which are much weaker than their Doppleganger cousins.

By the way, I'm glad no one has told a (insert three different races) walk into a bar joke.

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

People have been disallowing PHB I races since the days when there was just one PHB. I don't buy that there's an understood agreement that "it's in the Players Handbook VII; it's available in every game."

Heck, in my Midwood campaign (3.5), I disallowed halflings, half-orcs, half-elves, elves and monks. I got zero pushback.

[Klaus]

Originally Posted by Doctor Proctor

Then how do you have half-elves?

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".

Also, the only character in the party that has ever even see a dragonborn was my rogue, who's an archaeologist/relic hunter from a goblin-controlled metropolis.

[Merlin the Tuna]

Originally Posted by Kask

No, still had the same spells mechanically, Vancian magic system, classes functioning basically the same way, etc...

Spell mechanics certainly do not match prior editions, and I have little doubt that sizeable chunks of spells have come and gone. Classes don't function at all the same way (see: multiclassing, prestige classes, skills... did early editions even grant progressive class features beyond granting new spell slots? I'm no scholar on this), and even the Vancian system was subverted left and right, including by the Sorcerer and Bard in the PHB alone.

D&D is always something in name only -- in the end it's just a name. And there's nothing wrong with that.

[Greg K]

Originally Posted by Phaezen

Query, because I would really like to know.

Is a DM saying race x,y and z and classes f and q are not present in this campaign setting really that much of a dealbreaker to people?

There are some posts in threads here and many more at WOTC stating that DMs that ban are not good DMs. So, I would say that the answer to your queston is yes.

[Greg K]

Originally Posted by Merlin the Tuna

Spell mechanics certainly do not match prior editions

.
Some aspects don't, but it is definitely recognizable.

prestige classes

1e Bard was the first PrC. Also, in Basic/Expert, some classes required the character to be a minimum level of another class for entry.

even the Vancian system was subverted left and right, including by the Sorcerer and Bard in the PHB alone.

Spontaneous magic is simply a common houserule that I frequently saw (and even used) in 1e and 2e games made core

[Mournblade94]

Originally Posted by Greg K

There are some posts in threads here and many more at WOTC stating that DMs that ban are not good DMs. So, I would say that the answer to your queston is yes.

Except clearly its not because I limit races all the time, and always have people willing to play. I often eliminate races from the PHB, and I never had a player that wasn't able to figure out something else to play.

Just because people are posting they don't like it doesn't mean a DM would be bad. Just make sure the Players know ahead of time and your fine.

Pretty much I limit my races to standard 3rd edition races, tiefling, aasimar and genasi. I never had any ressistance.

[mhacdebhandia]

Originally Posted by ferratus

Common races - races you could expect to see in an average village among the various lower classes. They have flavour which suits an everyday industrious existence.

Frankly, the idea that dragonborn or tieflings don't have individuals who work in mines or fields or forges is ludicrous. No matter how the race came about, they're still just people - even when your life is enhanced by magical power or your blood thrumming with the influence of the Nine Hells, you still gotta work and eat.

When I created my most recent setting sketch, I put it this way:

As a frontier town, Solano has always featured a more diverse mix of races than the norm for the Spring Empire. Life on the borders, despite the conservative grumblings of the traditionalists of your grandmother's and grandfather's generation, had always been more concerned with what a person can do than with what that person's ancestry might be.

Most people in Solano are humans, tieflings, or half-elves, representing the three major races of the Spring Empire. There are several families from other races - elves, dragonborn, gnomes, halflings, shifters, and gnolls - in greater proportion than would be found in a town of similar size further to the east, in the empire's former heartlands.

As noted before, the majority of Solano's inhabitants are farmers, growing rice (in paddy fields flooded by channels connected to the old imperial aqueduct) along with other grains. Some farmers raise pigs, allowing them to forage in the fields and forests east of town down in the foothills; these swineherds also often grow fruit and root vegetables on their family lands.

Members of the minority races are over-represented in non-farming trades. Many of those who still work the mines are dragonborn or shifters, while elves and gnolls are prominent woodcutters and gnomes are actually the bulk of the carpenters. Most trade in Solano is based on barter, but there is a steady trickle of genuine coin brought in by traders, the odd visitor, and members of the gallant fraternity of adventurers.

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.

[Kask]

Originally Posted by merlin the tuna

spell mechanics certainly do not match prior editions, and i have little doubt that sizeable chunks of spells have come and gone.

rofl!

[Greg K]

Originally Posted by Mournblade94

Except clearly its not because I limit races all the time, and always have people willing to play. I often eliminate races from the PHB, and I never had a player that wasn't able to figure out something else to play.

Just because people are posting they don't like it doesn't mean a DM would be bad. Just make sure the Players know ahead of time and your fine.

Pretty much I limit my races to standard 3rd edition races, tiefling, aasimar and genasi. I never had any ressistance.

I agree that limiting does not make a bad DM and that a DM should be upfront . I also limit classes and my players not only have had a blast, but felt the limitations that I place and extra detail that I put into the thought of the setting for character generation enhance the game. The first time, I took this approach, one player happened to find his favorite class banned and was slightly reluctant- the character that he did create ended up being his favorite character in 15 years of gaming.

Despite your opinon and mine, there are players that have posted that any DM that limits races and classes is a bad DM.

[Garthanos]

Originally Posted by Fallen Seraph

Heck my current campaign setting has as far as really out there races:
-Demon Spirit possessing Humans: Their appearance altered substantially in multiple ways from simple things like horns to centaur like insectiod bodies, etc. (This covers a lot of races actually from Tiefling to Dragonborn, etc.)
-Cybernetic bodies brought to life by a Spirit: You can figure out this appearance pretty quickly essentially a cybernetic Warforged kind of appearance.
-Various animals who have become anthropomorphic. This is self explanatory.
-Shape-shifters whose basic appearance is the same as the Doppelganger.

Aside from your cybernetics those sound like stuff from my gaming... my Dwarves are structurally more like war forged, not really made of flesh and blood constructed by mages as slaves - but the dwarves were not war slaves but had specializations ranging from yup mining ... through household upkeep. (the latter looking softer and more like disney characters and far more diplomatic.. and charismatic) all dwarves are prone to following commands from human voices and at one time...they were bound to a specific voice signature.

I had somebody make a Daemon - he was soul bound to his creator a reincarnating human, the human was becoming a pacifist and he had to convince/connive his master in order to do big bad demon like things. The demon could project as a spirit but it was very vulnerable in that form.. human sorcerers with there immortal souls might bind break or kill him that way.. the physical form he made was nigh invulnerable but his soul wasn't.

Anthropomorphic animals yup created by mages in vats.

My multiform shape shifters had forgotten their native form and were probably alien in origin others are just humans with severe totemic attachments.