D&D 5E D&D Next Blog: Tone and Edition

Elodan · Apr 27, 2012

Have to admit I like the idea of tagging the races with common, uncommon, rare as it applies to what a DM allows in his or her campaign:
Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

Boarstorm · Apr 27, 2012

That idea was pretty much what I've been saying about the "class (and race) rarity" system since the idea was first floated over our heads -- it's an excellent shorthand for world-building (or perhaps world-defining).

P1NBACK · Apr 27, 2012

Put rules / guidelines for creating races / classes into the DMG. That way you can A) put a "core" set in without muddying the waters and still allow people to create their own stuff to bring their old campaign or settings along with them and B) give incentives for the more creative players to pick up a traditionally "DM only" book. The DM can still have approval over what goes into their campaign and modify the player's creation, but they'll know if the guidelines were followed, then the race / class should be playable.

D&D has always been about home-brewing stuff. If someone really wanted Tiefling in their game, they can always make it. Giving guidelines makes it explicit that you're expected to homebrew stuff.

As for the rarity system, I like it. You can even define setting stuff using it. "Dragonborn are considered Common in this region of the world."

thecasualoblivion · Apr 27, 2012

Dragonborn and Tieflings in the core PHB is good news. I forsee a lot of player vs DM trying to talk the DM into allowing things.

dkyle · Apr 27, 2012

Elodan said:
Have to admit I like the idea of tagging the races with common, uncommon, rare as it applies to what a DM allows in his or her campaign:

It's a good idea, but I'm not sure I like the terms. They imply a prevalence to those races within the game world, as opposed to options for the DM to choose from in populating the world. It suggests that those "rare" races are "supposed" to be in DnD, just in small quantities, so I'm not sure it quite accomplishes the stated goal.

I think, instead, names that reflect the style of fantasy those races are associated with:

Classic (Human, Elves, Dwarves, Halflings)
Traditional (Half-elves, Half-orcs, Gnomes, High Elves, Drow)
Modern (Dragonborn, Tieflings, Deva, Warforged, Wilden, etc.)

Doug McCrae · Apr 27, 2012

They're mad for monstrous PCs down my way. We've played a couple of 3E Savage Species campaigns that saw air elemental, drider, rakshasa, medusa, slaad and stone giant PCs, among others. My friends tend to be quite a bit more open-minded about that kind of thing than I am. And I'm open-minded by ENWorld standards.

thecasualoblivion · Apr 27, 2012

A more useful division of races would be:

Civilized
Unwelcome
Freak
Enemy

Minigiant · Apr 27, 2012

Works for me. Glad to see some nontraditional races in the player handbook.

Wont be touching a common only game for for a year or so after the game comes out.

Make it two years.

Ellington · Apr 27, 2012

Sure, I can live with that. I initially wanted those rare races to appear in supplements, but I'm sort of leaning to a core where everyone gets the races they want.

It's easier to just say 'no dragonborn' for the group that doesn't want them than for the group that does want them to have to stat them up themselves.