What races are left for D&D to do?

gyor

Legend
You know, I look through this thread, and I see all these responses.

And they are approaching this the wrong way.

It's not what races we should add, it's what races we NEED TO GET RID OF.

That's right, we have far too many races that need to be terminated, with extreme prejudice.

We can start with the Gnomes, and the first 500 or so Elven sub-races.

Then just keep cutting until the caterwauling (NOT A PLAYABLE RACE!) becomes too much. Somewhere around dwarf, or human.

Booooo.

Getting this thread back on track, I'm surprised I forgot Bladelings earlier, they would have fit MTOF to a glove honestly.

And I had a thought, is it just me or do Sorcerer origins blur the line between race and class? I mean with Dragonblooded your literally part Dragon, Divine Soul part Celestial or Fiend or whatever neutral would be, Shadow Magic is like being Shade race, and Storm Magic is like being Thunder genasi.
 

log in or register to remove this ad





Mercule

Adventurer
You know, I look through this thread, and I see all these responses.

And they are approaching this the wrong way.

It's not what races we should add, it's what races we NEED TO GET RID OF.

That's right, we have far too many races that need to be terminated, with extreme prejudice.

We can start with the Gnomes, and the first 500 or so Elven sub-races.

Then just keep cutting until the caterwauling (NOT A PLAYABLE RACE!) becomes too much. Somewhere around dwarf, or human.
You're not wrong -- though, I'd kill the painfully bland halflings and keep gnomes (forest, tinkers can die in a fire).

Really, though, I don't have a problem with a plethora of races being statted out. I have a problem with the absurd notion that every race has to be available in every setting. It's just fine for warforged to exist in Eberron but not the Realms or kender to be Krynn-specific (and tinker gnomes -- have I mentioned that I hate tinker gnomes?).

Moderation in all things. When talking about flavor, focus helps. At a certain point, too many races in one setting end up like one of those $8 all-you-can-eat places that have two 20' tables of various foods (this is probably one of those things non-Americans don't understand, and should be thankful for that). You get a block of veggie dishes that all taste like salt and butter, with hints of something canned. You get a block of meats that were all run through the same fryer. You get the table of breads that are too dry, but with minor differences. Of course, there's also the mashed potatoes and/or pudding that serve as buffers between categories. And, there's always the one station with someone slicing something that could be beef roast, prime rib, or something else vaguely cow-flavored. By throwing as much "variety" into it, the whole thing ends up being a flavorless mess, but consumers are pushed into an ADHD frenzy of trying everything. Or, they just stick with the staples and ignore all the random stuff, anyway.

So, go ahead and publish more races, but do it within the context of specific settings. Don't do thri-kreen until Dark Sun comes out, for example. If people want to mix and match for home brew, that's fantastic. A single published setting can't do everything, though.
 


SkidAce

Legend
Supporter
You're not wrong -- though, I'd kill the painfully bland halflings and keep gnomes (forest, tinkers can die in a fire).

So in my world, part of the historical legend (tm) is that a necromancer cast a 10th level Genocide spell and the race of halflings was gone forever.


And I kept gnomes.


/thumbs up!
 

G

Guest 6801328

Guest
I'm with Lowkey that there are already too many races. Especially since I think WotC really blew it with giving races stat bonuses in the first place. Stat bonuses should have been given to classes, not races. (E.g. Fighter gets +2 Str, subclasses each get +1 to an especially relevant stat.)
 


Remove ads

Top