D&D 5E Are you a cat person?

[doctorbadwolf]

I am a fan of the classic fantasy races too, but there are some things I find strange about the definition of "classic." For one, in my opinion, the lizard man is a classic fantasy archetype, but only one edition of D&D (4th) introduced a core PC race with reptilian features: the dragonborn (and they're arguably not lizard men). Secondly, I often find it strange that multiple types of elves is a common trope, but the majority of settings only seem to have one type of dwarf or two types of dwarf which are slightly different. Thirdly, I am not always sure I understand what the identity of D&D Gnomes is supposed to be. Lastly, I'm not always clear on what the divide is between orcs and goblinoids (or why orcs are even considered evil when considering the story of Gruumsh).

Tell me what the identity of Halflings is, and maybe why anyone finds them remotely interesting, and I'll try to explain gnomes. Deal? Because gnomes are the best DnD race, imo, and I love talking about gnomes.

The orc thing is super weird though. And the lack of lizardmen in most editions of DnD.

Also why do people get weird about there being 2 of some broad category, like "beast race" or "nature guys" or "short people"?

Like...elves humans half-elves dwarves how many medium sized less hairy primates do you need?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm kinda, sorta joking about "only humans allowed."

That said, I have a strong human preference. Mostly because, all joking aside, almost no players really role play non-humans, unless they are accentuating some obnoxious trait that they could also do as a human. If a person wants to play a non-human just for the ability scores and racial abilities, I just let them re-skin it as some type of variant human. If they want to play a non-human, I tell them that I expect some actual, um, non-humanness.

Also? Being pro-human necessarily includes being anti-gnome.

Makes sense, I rarely play humans, and love the Gnome.

But I genuinely want to understand this, what "non-humanness" do you expect? Why?

 

[Argyle King]

Tell me what the identity of Halflings is, and maybe why anyone finds them remotely interesting, and I'll try to explain gnomes. Deal? Because gnomes are the best DnD race, imo, and I love talking about gnomes.

The orc thing is super weird though. And the lack of lizardmen in most editions of DnD.

Also why do people get weird about there being 2 of some broad category, like "beast race" or "nature guys" or "short people"?

Like...elves humans half-elves dwarves how many medium sized less hairy primates do you need?

I'm not particularly a big fan of Halflings either. A big part of how I came up with Woem (my catfolk race) was because I wanted something different for the smallfolk niche. In theory, Halflings are (I guess) Hobbits, but that doesn't really seem to hold true considering that D&D Halflings seem to be city dwellers. I suppose I could see Halflings being used for Willow.

In my mind, Gnomes wear pointy hats and talk to animals. That's a mental imprint from having watched David The Gnome as a child. My struggle when it comes to D&D is that there are a lot of conflicting ideas behind what a Gnome is. They are nature-loving people half of the time and clockwork engineers the other half of the time. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for monolithic cultures for all races, but having a more solid idea about what Gnomes are supposed to be would be helpful. Are they naturey short people with funny hats? Tinker Gnomes? An offshoot of dwarves?

I only mention being one type of Dwarf because it's odd in the context of the multitude of subraces for other things. Though, ah suppose that could be used as an interesting roleplaying cue. "Ye ever notice that tha Elves act snooty and superior to us all? Well, if they're so great, howz come there need to be so many types just to survive bein' outside in a diff'rent place? See, that's how ah know Moradin is the greatest of gods. He forged Dwarves once and got it right tha first time!"

 

[transtemporal]

I also get why some people don't like them, given the fact they embody the CN lifestyle as described in Volo's.

That's not why I hate them. I hate them because they encourage obnoxious, furry-obsessed, drama queens who disrupt the table doing dumb stuff then say "I had to do that because I'm a Tabaxi!" Basically imagine Jonah Hill at his most obnoxious playing a Tabaxi. That's what players who play any type of cat-race are like. NO EXCEPTIONS!

 

[JonnyP71]

No.

It's best when it's people playing people.

My current Eberron campaign has not a single human, and there aren't any of the racial stereotypes people tend to insist are nearly inevitable with non human characters.

Surely it becomes humans playing other species mostly like humans anyway...?

I guess most of this derives from several factors regarding the campaign style and the source of fantasy. I enjoy the traditional vanilla nature of Greyhawk, my fantasy is firmly rooted in Tolkien, my inspiration comes from 1E material. I didn't even jump on the Dragonlance and FR bandwagons in the late 80s. At my table the racial preferences table from the 1E PHB is very much a thing. As I gave up gaming in 1992 before coming back to it in 2013, I missed that entire generation of fantasy. I never got into anime, was never influenced by the Japanese console RPGs, WoW, or campaign worlds such as Planescape, Eberron or the Nentir Vale. I missed the whole revolution that was player-empowerment. I prefer low level lethality over crazy heroics, and a game where players are challenged rather than characters.

So the idea of game world that is not human-centric does not *feel* right to me. Having read up on Eberron I dislike it intensely because it is far from traditional in that sense.

I could not DM your party because I would not enjoy it. The game would feel too much like a cartoon, when I prefer grittiness. And I *like* fantasy racism.

 

[KahlessNestor]

Surely it becomes humans playing other species mostly like humans anyway...?

I guess most of this derives from several factors regarding the campaign style and the source of fantasy. I enjoy the traditional vanilla nature of Greyhawk, my fantasy is firmly rooted in Tolkien, my inspiration comes from 1E material. I didn't even jump on the Dragonlance and FR bandwagons in the late 80s. At my table the racial preferences table from the 1E PHB is very much a thing. As I gave up gaming in 1992 before coming back to it in 2013, I missed that entire generation of fantasy. I never got into anime, was never influenced by the Japanese console RPGs, WoW, or campaign worlds such as Planescape, Eberron or the Nentir Vale. I missed the whole revolution that was player-empowerment. I prefer low level lethality over crazy heroics, and a game where players are challenged rather than characters.

So the idea of game world that is not human-centric does not *feel* right to me. Having read up on Eberron I dislike it intensely because it is far from traditional in that sense.

I could not DM your party because I would not enjoy it. The game would feel too much like a cartoon, when I prefer grittiness. And I *like* fantasy racism.

Tokein really? So the Hobbit is human-centric? There isn't a single Human PC in the whole book... Maybe Bard, but that's pushing it.

You have more of an argument for LOTR, but even then, the majority of the PCs are non-Human (elf, dwarf, four hobbits, and an aasimaar, essentially).

 

[JonnyP71]

The heroes do indeed include a number of races - the 'traditional' ones (no gnomes!!), but the world itself is predominantly human. In general each group keeps themselves to themselves unless driven by the threat of a greater force. The Shire has flourished because it is ignored, most Hobbits have never seen an Elf - who tend to dwell deep in the forests, Dwarfs go about their business in their own enclaves... and the area between all these racial concentrations - humans - many many different groups of humans.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm not particularly a big fan of Halflings either. A big part of how I came up with Woem (my catfolk race) was because I wanted something different for the smallfolk niche. In theory, Halflings are (I guess) Hobbits, but that doesn't really seem to hold true considering that D&D Halflings seem to be city dwellers. I suppose I could see Halflings being used for Willow.

In my mind, Gnomes wear pointy hats and talk to animals. That's a mental imprint from having watched David The Gnome as a child. My struggle when it comes to D&D is that there are a lot of conflicting ideas behind what a Gnome is. They are nature-loving people half of the time and clockwork engineers the other half of the time. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for monolithic cultures for all races, but having a more solid idea about what Gnomes are supposed to be would be helpful. Are they naturey short people with funny hats? Tinker Gnomes? An offshoot of dwarves?

I only mention being one type of Dwarf because it's odd in the context of the multitude of subraces for other things. Though, ah suppose that could be used as an interesting roleplaying cue. "Ye ever notice that tha Elves act snooty and superior to us all? Well, if they're so great, howz come there need to be so many types just to survive bein' outside in a diff'rent place? See, that's how ah know Moradin is the greatest of gods. He forged Dwarves once and got it right tha first time!"

Huh. Idk, seems pretty strait forward to me. There are three kinds of Gnome, and each has a distinct ID. And each is actually distinct from other races by things other than size, which is why I prefer them to Halflings. And also, what is the identity of elves, or dwarves, or even humans? Generally, unless a setting is very boring, it depends on setting and which culture within a setting you look at.


Forest Gnomes are a bit like David the Gnome. They often live in burrow houses in the roots of trees, talk to small creatures, and have that fairy reisistence to magic and ability to use illusions.

Rock Gnomes are similar in that they live in burrow homes, usually hidden from the world, but distinct in that they are focused on invention and craft, and are a bit tougher. Their cleverness is focused on craft rather than magic.

And then there are the Deep Gnomes. They seem to be more inspired by the Gnome of European alchemy. An elemental earth being. They should have the ability to ignore difficult terrain in rocky terrain, imo, and the magic feat should give them the ability to walk through stone, but it's fine.

If you want something like when people call elves "pretty long lived humans", I can't help with that, bc I think that stuff is always kinda silly.

And the creatures that inspire the DnD Gnome are probably the same that gave partial inspiration to the hobbits.

 

[schnee]

I'd like them if they weren't so damn overpowered.

Their stats, skills and abilities all add up to be Mary Sue powerful at low levels.

But, when it comes to races, bring anything to my table. One of my early games included a robot (an escapee doctor bot from S3 with a syringe and a murderous bedside manner) and a sentient blob (wizard, telepathic communication within 30', 'wore' magic items by absorbing them into it's center of mass), and that game was absolutely hilarious.

It helped that we'd all recently seen Time Bandits and went for maximum goof.

 

[Mercule]

I'm a cat person, in the traditional sense. I'm open to cat races, and have played them, but it's not a particular hot button. I dislike Tabaxi because I don't like the name. Statistically, they could be the Platonic ideal of an anthropomorphic cat and I wouldn't be inclined to use them. Sorry.