Race Restriction House Rule?

[Negflar2099]

Recently I've made a terrible discovery about myself. Since 4e came out I've heard a lot of complaints from people who feel the oddball races (like Tieflings and Dragonborn) are too out there, too weird to be included among the "normal" races of human, halfling, elf and dwarf. Even the Eladrin have struck some people as too strange to be part of D&D. In the past I've dismissed those concerns. I like letting players have lots of options, and the last thing I want to do is dictate to players what they can and cannot play. Even limiting their options to the five or six typical races smacks me of DM micromanagement. If you're going to limit them to five why not limit them to only human, or just choose for them what races and classes they are going to play?

At least that's how I've felt in the past but recently I came to sympathize with those DM's who don't like it when their parties don't feel very typically fantasy. My players tend to gravitate to the strange and with the number of racial options (and subsequent weirdness) ballooning out in 4e, they've had a lot of strange races to choose from. If it's not living golems or beings of pure crystal it's nice guy Gnolls or former dead guys now alive and kicking. I can't remember the last time someone played an elf or half-elf let alone a human.

Now I hate myself for feeling this way but that bothers me. Not only does it not seem very D&D to me, it feels like the group doesn't belong together. After all we all love Wolverine but if everyone plays a feral loner then what's so special about being a feral loner?

I've thought about just saying no, but that doesn't sit well with me. I don't want to completely eliminate strange races. On their own the freaky races are pretty cool. It's only a problem when every group is nothing but freaks.

To that end I've come up with this idea: What if we split races into common, uncommon and rare (like the new magic item distinction which gave me the idea). Common races would include the usual D&D suspects (human, elf etc...). Players can double up on common races (there could be two humans or two elves in a group) and their are no restrictions on race (that is everyone can play a member of a common race). Uncommon races would include the slightly strange but not too strange (Goliaths, maybe Dragonborn etc...). There would be two restrictions on uncommon races. First there can't be two of the same race in the same party (so only one Dragonborn for instance) and not more than half of the party (rounded down) could be uncommon races (so 2 players in a 5 player party could play uncommon races but the others would have to pick either common or rare). Rare races would be those truly bizarre races (Shardminds, Deva). Only one person in the party can be a member of a rare race.

What do yo think? Is this still too unfair to players? Am I still micromanaging? If a DM used this system in a game you played, would you protest or would you be okay with it?

Thanks ahead of time for your comments.

 

[fba827]

I completely understand what you mean - I don't think the group i've played with recently has ever had a party that could walk into a tavern and not be considered at least 50% freaks. Not that there is anything wrong with it, just some people prefer to play that loner outcast (but, yes, it does get a little overdone after you've seen a player do variations of it for several PCs in a row).

In general, I have no concern one way or the other with restricting race as long as it fits thematically with the setting you're presenting (i.e. maybe all dragonborn are slaves, thus it can't be a viable PC given that a dragonborn PC wouldn't be able to function in a town without being tossed in jail as an escaped slave. drow are automatically evil. and warforged have been made mindless soldiers by the king to serve in his army. and maybe shardminds simply don't exist in this world, heck niether do psionic classes. the trick is to leave enough options and maybe one or two freak options for those that need such an outlet.)


With regards to your presented mechanics, I know if I were to do something like that in one of my groups, it would generate hurt feelings ("why does he get to do that race when I wanted to?" and so on.)


sidebar question: do you get the feeling that they are picking the "freaky" races for the stat syngery with the classes? Or do you think they really like playing the freak?

if it's stat synergy, perhaps you can present stat bonus options for some of the races (i.e. if you pick elf, you can put a +2 Dex and the other +2 in Wis or Cha -- or whatever you think is thematic for your setting).

if it's because they like to play freaks, maybe a little house ruling -- ask everyone to stick with a more common race, but tell them that there is something unique about them and they all have a bonus encounter power or something. this way, they have to figure out what made them so special and what to do about it, and so on.

if you wanted to be really underhanded in a subtle sort of way, the races you define as common get some extra little something. maybe they get a little bonus equipment in the first session -- don't call it out as "because of their race" but rather "because you would be tied to this area, you have this from some family contacts next door" etc. whereas the rare races wouldn't have those sorts of contacts.

or define it like "all dragonborns in this setting are slaves" thus, the player knows going into it that if he's playing a dragonborn, it's going to be a slave, or escaped slave, and he'll have trouble doing most anything in cities due to his status in town.

be sure to play up the freakiness - they'll have trouble getting a table at the tavern, or getting good deals with the merchants, and the king will have a hard time being convinced to listen to them, etc.


if all else fails, just roll with it. yes, they are freaks. and they are perhaps the only one of their repsective races here... and that leads to the question of 'why' ? perhaps there is something happening in that region that affects the world (and no one else knows it) thus they have to track it down and stop it, and so on.


(sorry for the scattered thoughts, it's late and i'm tired. but hopefully you can get the gist of what i'm saying )

 

[Aulirophile]

People who are OK with Elves but balk at Dragonborn, both of whom are inherently magical, strike me as the same people who are OK with the phrase "She's just a little bit pregnant." Magic is ubiquitous in 4e, and magical races are all common. That is D&D, right now, in this edition.

The problem you're having, and that the people you're talking have, is all about preconceptions of how "things should be."

 

[Nymrohd]

I'm inclined to believe that a lot of players make strange race choices because they feel race is secondary and they try to match a race to the class and build they want to play (ability-wise). If you relax the ability bonuses granted by PHB1 or even PHB2 races to be more flexible like the PHB3 races, it might well have an impact. I for one use this:

PHB 1
Dragonborn: +2 Str, +2 Con or Cha
Dwarf: +2 Con, +2 Str or Wis
Eladrin: +2 Dex, +2 Int or Cha
Elf: +2 Dex, +2 Str or Wis
Half-Elf: +2 Cha, +2 Con or Dex
Halfling: +2 Dex, +2 Con or Cha
Human: +2 Str, Dex or Con, +2 Int, Wis or Cha (This might not be balanced)
Tiefling: +2 Int, +2 Con or Cha

PHB 2
Deva: +2 Int, +2 Wis or Cha
Gnome: +2 Cha, +2 Int or Con
Goliath: +2 Str, +2 Con or Wis
Half-Orc: +2 Str, +2 Dex or Wis

 

[Shin Okada]

Well, as a DM I do not ban any of the 4e races as long as they are official "PC version". I mean, I don't allow Bugbear, I didn't allow Drow, Warforged or Minotaur until they actually appear in FRPG, EPG, or PHB3. That is mainly because, as the authors themselves are writing, those "race" stats in MM were not meant to be used as PCs and thus not play-tested enough.

Now, all the "PC version" races are legal in my games. Still I see a lot of Human PCs played. Indeed, Human is one of the best choice even for power gamers. No other race have additional L1 at-will attack power, additional feat, additional skill, & the highest NAD is powerful.

Sometimes, people picks up a "strange" race mainly because their stats or racial power match to the build they want to play. But I don't think that is a bad thing at all. Usually there are more than 1 candidate races for a certain type of build (in almost all the cases, at least human can be at least "another option"). So at least, my players are not "forced" to play a race which they don't want to play, just because that race is the best for the character build they want to pursue.

Also, I don't see any problem even if an adventuring party is composed only of inhuman races, as long as my players are enjoy playing them. PCs are special heroes, not the common people. Then, what's wrong with they are being inhuman?

At this moment, I see no advantage on restricting PC races (sans for those monsters who are not-yet-meant to be played as PCs).

 

[Ahnirades]

The problem you're having, and that the people you're talking have, is all about preconceptions of how "things should be."

For some of us it's more a case of "how I prefer things to be." It's cool that D&D offers such breadth of choice, but not all choices are appropriate for all campaigns at all times.

It's one of the reasons why I'll be trying a Heroes of the Fallen Lands game. I'd like to return to something closer to my conception of traditional D&D, which HotFL seems to cover nicely.

 

[Aulirophile]

Which is how you think things should be. Thanks for proving my point. There are game systems, and indeed even editions of D&D, where this really isn't an issue, as you've pointed out. 4e is a very good system for what it is specifically trying to do: a world where magic is ubiquitous, and therefore magical items, races, and etc., are common. The PHB and the DMG make it abundantly clear that this was the vision the designers went into making 4e with, and it shows.

Letting "how things should be" interfere with leveraging 4e's strengths is bad.

 

[Ahnirades]

Which is how you think things should be. Thanks for proving my point.

No, I didn't.

I expressed a preference. Making a selection based on that does not invalidate the unselected or relegate it to the 'should not.' I think D&D is a better game for the wide range of classes and races it offers.

 

[Shin Okada]

I'm inclined to believe that a lot of players make strange race choices because they feel race is secondary and they try to match a race to the class and build they want to play (ability-wise).

One thing I found is that truly imaginative power players can explore beyond primary/secondary ability score matching. And indeed 4e allows that.

Each of the 4e classes have at least one primal ability score and 2 or more secondary ability scores. This structure opens various classes to various races. And even if non of the race's ability score bonus matches to the ones useful for a certain class, racial traits and racial feats can open possibilities.

It is widely accepted that Dwarf is one of the best race for Fighter even though Dwarf is not a STR +2 race. This is just a starting point.

Eladrin Paladin? Not bad. Indeed it is good for a defender to have slightly better initiative bonus and the ability to teleport once per encounter. Eladrin Education also helps Paladin to learn Athletics skill. Deva Rogue? Well, some of the most important skills are wisdom based. And Memory of a Thousand Lifetimes helps you to either hit a target in critical moment, or let you make an important skill check. And so on.

 

[WhatGravitas]

I'm inclined to believe that a lot of players make strange race choices because they feel race is secondary and they try to match a race to the class and build they want to play (ability-wise).

The racial abilities can be pretty sweet as well (e.g. second wind as minor action etc.).

However, rather than banning races, I'd rather reflavour them into human subraces with (overall) human appearance. Most races are not too overtly magical, so it's possible to explain away the abilities in a less SFX way.

Cheers, LT.