Ridding D&D of All Races - Multiple Choice Poll

[Psyzhran2357]

People really don't like Dragonborn huh. And mechanically, they're barely stronger than a grounded Aarakocra. Ouch. Poor Dragonborn.

 

[WaterRabbit]

I don't get it, but if it works for you, great.

I really really don't get how goliaths fit into any of that, though. They aren't video game reminiscent at all.

And like...they are big giantish people who live in the high mountain, why the need for any rewrite?

Maybe because there are other big giantish people that live in the high mountains? How many races can the high mountains support -- much less giant ones?

Goliaths are totally superfluous and are trying to fill a niche that is already filled. There is nothing interesting about them. Additionally, they are a shoehorn concept -- i.e., trying to make a large player character into a medium frame. In current published game settings, they don't even fit. The only exception I can see would be Dark Sun as they could replace the half-giant role. (It should go without saying they would fit in a Spelljammer or Sigil setting).

So maybe you cannot imagine a setting where they don't fit, but I certainly can. They came in at the end of 3rd edition and were not a part of 1st or 2nd. I have played plenty of D&D where goliaths, dragonborn, tieflings, etc. were not even NPC races -- game played fine without them.

I would prefer to see a setting in which Goliaths were a part of it to begin with and in which it was tailored for them to be an interesting race. Even in the default FR setting they are little more than a footnote.

It's unclear how old the goliath race was or where they originally came from, but it was commonly believed that they were somehow related to stone giants or earth genasi.

Yawn.

Races should fit the setting and be integral to the setting. In Spelljammer and Sigil the "any race you want works" because they access many different worlds and planes. Other settings where planar and "spacial" travel are limited, not so much.

It seems to me the fault line here is between those that like lore and world building versus those that see a collection of attributes that are packaged as a "race".

I will also throw in that this isn't just limited to the idea of race though. I can see many settings where some classes could just as easily be excluded or reskinned -- barbarians, druids, paladins, sorcerers, warlocks, and/or their sub-classes really only fit in the context of certain settings.

For example, in Dark Sun, warlocks could be reskinned to be templars whose pacts are held by the dragon kings.

So just because something has been published somewhere by WotC, doesn't mean that it is always setting appropriate.

 

[WaterRabbit]

People really don't like Dragonborn huh. And mechanically, they're barely stronger than a grounded Aarakocra. Ouch. Poor Dragonborn.

They would be better if they could shout instead of breathe fire.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Maybe because there are other big giantish people that live in the high mountains? How many races can the high mountains support -- much less giant ones?

Wait, there's only room for one? that seems strange.

Goliaths are totally superfluous and are trying to fill a niche that is already filled. There is nothing interesting about them. Additionally, they are a shoehorn concept -- i.e., trying to make a large player character into a medium frame. In current published game settings, they don't even fit. The only exception I can see would be Dark Sun as they could replace the half-giant role. (It should go without saying they would fit in a Spelljammer or Sigil setting).

But they fit just fine in every published setting. They also aren't shoehorned anything in 5e. They're the only player race that fills their niche, so I don't see how they could be superfluous.

They came in at the end of 3rd edition and were not a part of 1st or 2nd. I have played plenty of D&D where goliaths, dragonborn, tieflings, etc. were not even NPC races -- game played fine without them.

How is that even relevant to anything?

It seems to me the fault line here is between those that like lore and world building versus those that see a collection of attributes that are packaged as a "race".

Nope.

 

[Sacrosanct]

People really don't like Dragonborn huh. And mechanically, they're barely stronger than a grounded Aarakocra. Ouch. Poor Dragonborn.

For many people, mechanics really don't matter. Not nearly as much as flavor, fluff, and themes they like in their games.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

They’re just entirely tacked on and unrelated to established lore and the dozens of existing plant monsters and floral humanoids.
They’re not “hey this is a humanoid shambling mound” or “an intelligent twigling/ vibe blight”. They’re just new and out of nowhere.

It’d be simmilar to if they wanted to make a new race of pure good outsiders and didn’t even remotely connect them to angels and the like.

You just described why they're better as they are. WHy would I want playable shambling mounds? They're not connected to shambling mounds. If anything, it'd be playable treants, but even then, manifestation of the primal spirits is more interesting than playable treants, and also not mutually exclusive with it. You can have both side by side. They do different things in terms of narrative.

 

[clearstream]

we shouldn't yuck on other people's yum.

Except gnomes. We should all be able to agree that gnomes are a frivolous and ankle-biting scourge that should be eliminated from all known D&D editions.

Gnomes are an existential yuck.

I have only two wishes with races. One, no gnomes. Two, clear demarcation between core and optional races. With an expectation that core are well-playtested and balanced with all other core material.

 

[Mercurius]

I don't get it, but if it works for you, great.

I really really don't get how goliaths fit into any of that, though. They aren't video game reminiscent at all.

And like...they are big giantish people who live in the high mountain, why the need for any rewrite?

idk, like I said, you do you, I just don't get it at all.

My first contact with goliaths in D&D was 4e and probably this image:



Can you see why I would associate them with video games? It is an initial imprinting.

But you're right - they don't have to be that way, and I can adapt them to the context of my homebrew in a way that I don't feel comfortable doing with tieflings and dragonborn.

 

[jmartkdr]

I voted to keep, because I think any of them could be good - even if I don't like them myself.

I read a comment somewhere that really helped me discover why I find some races more interesting that others. I'm not sure I remember it exactly, and I don't think it's *true*, but it's definitely telling:

"Fantasy is inner conflict given physical form."

The interesting races to me are the ones where I can clearly identify the inner conflict the outward form represents:

Halflings/gnomes: small. Not just physically - they're the 'little people' who lack power in the world and need to make a difference anyways. (the only issue is they're kind of the same - but they're both perfectly good versions.)

Dragonborn: they look like gods, and need to live up to that expectation.

Tieflings/half-orcs/drow: inherited sin. Overdone (we definitely don't need three races for this), but classic for a reason. Half-elves were here originally.

Eladrin: controlling your emotions

Lizardfolk: existing without empathy

Kenku: finding your voice

Dwarves: clan honor (although this only works if that honor is art of a conflict - it needs to be challenged).

Other non-human races don't really work for me because while they often have a *theme*, I don't see a conflict, and therefore don't see an interesting fantasy story embedded in them. But I tend give them the benefit of the doubt - I didn't see all of these at first glance either.

 

[Jester David]

You just described why they're better as they are. WHy would I want playable shambling mounds? They're not connected to shambling mounds. If anything, it'd be playable treants, but even then, manifestation of the primal spirits is more interesting than playable treants, and also not mutually exclusive with it. You can have both side by side. They do different things in terms of narrative.

But, again, they're not connected to treants. Or wood woads. Or myconids. Or vegepygmies. Or dryads. Or tendriculos. Or volodni. Or twig blights. Or any of the other existing plant monsters.
Instead of enriching the existing lore and making an existing part of the world deeper the wilden are just slapped on. They're just there.
IIRC, they originally didn't even mention primal spirits in their write-up.