Ridding D&D of All Races - Multiple Choice Poll

MechaPilot said:

So Badgerborn would be a race? Because . . . the brotherhood of mammals . . . I guess? The same thing for intelligent animals?

Click to expand...

Sounds like Redwall, Narnia, or a variety of anime based campaigns. Could work.

I'd rather get rid of the idea that just because the race exists in a book, it should therefore exist in the world. Having the option to include them is fine, but there's times where I see people seem to assume that because it's in a book, it must be included in a world.

clearstream said:

I have only two wishes with races . . . Two, clear demarcation between core and optional races.

Click to expand...

Your wish has already been granted. The Player's Handbook has a side bar beside the dragonborn that says "The dragonborn and the rest of the races in this chapter are uncommon. They don’t exist in every world of D&D, and even where they are found, they are less widespread than dwarves, elves, halflings, and humans."

Dwarves, elves, halflings and humans are clearly the core races.

flametitan said:

I'd rather get rid of the idea that just because the race exists in a book, it should therefore exist in the world. Having the option to include them is fine, but there's times where I see people seem to assume that because it's in a book, it must be included in a world.

Click to expand...

Well, in organized play that's exactly the case: if a race is in an allowed book then it's allowed, and the DM has no choice.

That same mentality bleeds over into home games*, leaving the DM stuck between either allowing something she doesn't want in her game or being the villain and saying no.

* - perhaps a bit more controversially, I'll posit this mentality is far stronger now than it was, say, 30 years ago; in part due to all the 2e splatbooks from the '90s (and the resulting push from players to include their contents in the game) and in bigger part due to 4e's "everything is core" marketing approach.

For my own part, I can live with Gnomes far more than with Dragonborn or Tieflings. D's and T's to me are just the sort of monsters adventurers spend years learning how to kill. Warforged don't fit into every campaign, though having them as a clearly-labelled option is fine for those as wants 'em.

That said: Centaur, Leprechaun, Dryad, Part-YuanTi - all these have appeared in my games as one-off PCs, accessed only by the most unusual of random rolls. You can't choose one of these (and yes, you can choose from the basic races native to the area), but you can decline one should the dice take you there.

As for Part-xxxx's, a long time ago I came up with a table and large chart in an attempt to show what can breed with what. It's messy, but it works.

Lan-"the phrase 'sending no message' has Gnomes hidden in it"-efan

Sacrosanct said:

Not a fan of dragonborn or tieflings, but they've been core for a long time, so I didn't vote them out. However, I did vote monstrous races, and all the "half" races (despite them being core for a long long time). Why? Because if you have half orc and half elf, then by extension you should have half everything else. Half halflings? half gnomes? Half dwarves? You've either set the precedence that humans can breed with any other humanoid, or you don't. I choose, "you don't".

Monstrous races have always been a one off exception, and should stay so.

Click to expand...

I maintain that a half halfling should be called a quarterling and their existence promptly denied.

Lanefan said:

Well, in organized play that's exactly the case: if a race is in an allowed book then it's allowed, and the DM has no choice.

Click to expand...

A very, very small amount of the player base plays in those games though.

That same mentality bleeds over into home games*, leaving the DM stuck between either allowing something she doesn't want in her game or being the villain and saying no.

Click to expand...

Well, the PHB splits up races into 'common' and 'uncommon'.

On uncommon races: 'They don't exist in every world of D&D, and when they are found they are less widespread...'

So the precedent of not allowing races (except the 4 common ones) starts in the PHB itself.

I think keep the races but drop a bunch of subraces. There should be no difference between a hill and mountain dwarf they are both dwarves.

SomeCubingNerd said:

I think keep the races but drop a bunch of subraces. There should be no difference between a hill and mountain dwarf they are both dwarves.

Click to expand...

EDIT: Ignore earlier

How different would subraces have to be in order to not be dropped? Wood Elf - High Elf, or Wood Elf - Eladrin levels of different?

Satyrn said:

Your wish has already been granted. The Player's Handbook has a side bar beside the dragonborn that says "The dragonborn and the rest of the races in this chapter are uncommon. They don’t exist in every world of D&D, and even where they are found, they are less widespread than dwarves, elves, halflings, and humans."

Click to expand...

Should I ever run a new Greyhawk campaign I've slated the Dragonborn as the race of the Celestial Imperium to the west of the Sea of Dust (why do you think the Suel and Baklunish fled east?).

CubicsRube said:

I maintain that a half halfling should be called a quarterling and their existence promptly denied.

Click to expand...

Or should it be a three-quarterling, as it's a halfling (i.e. half a human) mixed with a full human...

I once DMed a party who - in character! - had this very argument while in a combat, yelling at each other across the battle their reasons for quarterling or three-quarterling. Good times.