Ridding D&D of All Races - Multiple Choice Poll

[Mercurius]

Back to the OP, I'm not sure why we should "get rid of" any race. I see the D&D books as toolboxes that individual DMs can pick and choose from. The more races the better.

The default setting, the FR, has 99% of those options. Different settings vary to different degrees.

Now whether or not they end up in my campaign world is a different matter. That's part of the fun of world-building and campaign design.

 

[WaterRabbit]

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

I asked how many? Apparently you only believe there is one. Of just bipedal I count over a dozen already in that space.

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.

No they don't and they aren't even close to the only player race that fits that space. Just for a start how about Mountain Dwarves (not to be too obvious). In fact Goliaths are little more than big mountain dwarves.

How is that even relevant to anything?

Try harder, I am sure you will eventually figure it out.

Nope.

Yep that seems to be exactly the case. From reading your posts in this thread I am now more convinced than ever.

 

[Ashrym]

Other...

Get rid of what doesn't work in your home campaign on a case-by-case basis. There is no need for extremes or forcing an opinion on everyone.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[GreyLord]

My main complaint against the Tiefling is that they do not also include the Aasimar as a core race. There should be balance, as all Neutral PC's know.

 

[Ashrym]

My main complaint against the Tiefling is that they do not also include the Aasimar as a core race. There should be balance, as all Neutral PC's know.

I would argue one is the result of a typically more promiscuous group than the other. I would also let players play Aasimar if that's really what they want and the existence or lack of tieflings would have zero relevance to that decision. They don't have to go hand in hand.

 

[Tallifer]

I can allow every race in campaign (especially since I am so eclectic myself in the vast array of sentient creatures whom the heroes encounter: the latest is a walking, talking giants' house), but I do frown on players trying to play strange new races (especially homebrew/DMs Guild/3rd party) for the sake of mechanical advantage.

I had a player recently playtest an earth elemental race... turns out it had over 100 HP at 8th level, resistance to slashing, bludgeoning, piercing, fire, cold, something, something, and needed no sleep, food, air or water. Not saying it was broken (since it had no ranged ability, was easy to hit, and various other shortcomings), but it was way out of whack with any other character: it was either unaffected by an encounter, or else it was completely useless in an encounter.

 

[Quartz]

I don't have a problem with umpteen races; I do have a problem with umpteen races in the party. A party of centaurs? Fine. A party of dwarves? Fine. A party with a human, a centaur, a dwarf, an orc, and a plant-man? Not fine.

Beyond that, I don't really like the idea of tieflings.

 

[MechaPilot]

I say the more racial options the better, especially monstrous ones. You don't have to use them, but those of us who've tired of the traditional fantasy races (or, at the very least, of their traditional presentation) probably will. So, adding more races increases variability of playstyle, which I consider a good thing. And that's not a surprise given how much I loved AD&D 2e's Complete Book of Humanoids. I probably would've greatly enjoyed the various Dragon articles on playing monster races had I ever subscribed to them (or known of their existence) before they became part of 4e's digital suite.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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

View attachment 103563

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.

I generally don’t remember the first image I ever saw of any given thing, so that may be part of the disconnect here. First impressions just don’t mean as much to me as they to do a lot of other folks. I also first met goliaths in the Races of Stone book, which also helps.

Dragonborn and Tieflings require things of the setting, so I can get them. Especially Tieflings. Dragonborn don’t actually even require dragons to exist (though they should at least be in myth and/or history, otherwise a name change is appropriate.

Tieflings, though, require a whole slew of world building assumptions to even exist. Still, visually, they can look however you want, which can help.