Tiefling and half-orc should not be in the PHB

[variant]

So, because YOU don't have the strength of will to enforce the decisions you make in your campaigns, EVERYBODY else must miss something?

You are confusing crap that gets on my nerves with not having the strength to enforce my decisions.

I have to agree here. More options for races is better than fewer. By the restriction argument, Humans should be the only "core" race and everything else is an "additive" as humans are the only race in 99% of every fantasy setting. There is no 1 Elf to rule them all. Some setting have no halflings. Etc.

Personally I would like to see a wide range of "base" races as well as a codified race building system, somewhat like Fantasy Craft. Something along the lines of "all races are built with X build points and here is a list of possible racial abilities and their costs". I would also like to see Sub-races done as racial feats.

I disagree. There can always be too much of something. To cover people who want more races, they could release a "Tome of Races".

 

[Meophist]

Personally, I would like to see a variety of exotic races. It'll sell to me better as a fantasy world where fantastic things happen. I would kinda like to see the different races do things that you wouldn't expect a human to.

Although I seem to be a bit of a minority in that.

 

[Khaalis]

They'd be optional, of course, and any DM is entitled to omit them as a PC choice. But optional doesn't have to mean "outtasite".

As with all previous editions of D&D ... RULE 0! EVERYTHING should be "optional" as per the DM's choice for the game they are running. That doesn't mean because some people hate Halflings/Pechs that they should be omitted.

 

[Minigiant]

Nah. Too much symmetry is ugly.

But too little symmetry is boring.

Why do we have to be stuck with humans, short humans, scrawny humans, and stout humans?

Can't a brother get a few big dumb lummoxes, horned crafty red people, and a sneaky green people?

 

[variant]

As with all previous editions of D&D ... RULE 0! EVERYTHING should be "optional" as per the DM's choice for the game they are running. That doesn't mean because some people hate Halflings/Pechs that they should be omitted.

Except from my experience, most people don't deem anything in the Player's Handbook to fall under "Rule 0".

 

[Shemeska]

I like tieflings (and aasimar) and they've been a part of D&D for a long time now as player races. However as much as I like them, I can see the point of those folks who aren't sure about them being a part of the initial PHB core of the game. And oddly enough, I'm ok with that.

Some of the crazier oddball races that I'm perfectly comfortable with from the PoV of someone used to playing planar games where standard races might be a minority, they do tend to stick out in more mundane settings. Perhaps they should be restricted in some capacity to being included in a supplemental race book (something like the forthcoming Pathfinder 'Advanced Races Guide'). They're part of the game, the information is out there, but there's the soft restriction of their not being in the PHB so rules lawyers won't moan about the DM being unfair or against the rules if they don't allow them in their particular campaign. That's the hope anyway.

And if there's a published planar setting, or another setting where tieflings or aasimar, or whatever other oddball races won't be too far afield from the traditional core D&D races - well that's a perfect spot to point them out as options appropriate for those settings.

 

[mkill]

You are confusing crap that gets on my nerves with not having the strength to enforce my decisions.

Nope. He isn't, he is spot on.

And really, maybe gaming can teach you some tolerance. RPGs are a social hobby. Deal with it.

If everybody would learn to accept other people's chosen race in a game, they might even learn to accept other people's born race in real life. And that would make this planet so much nicer to live on.

/thread

 

[Recidivism]

Honestly I can't say I've ever used a Tiefling NPC in a campaign. Even so I'm not really opposed to them showing up just because the idea of having character with some demonic/supernatural heritage is not that uncommon. I think it's a good idea to have rules for them if only for that purpose.

I wouldn't mind seeing Dragonborn out of the PHB though. They never really had a strong flavor in my mind to differentiate themselves from Orcs/Half-Orcs, and the latter are a lot more iconic.

 

[tlantl]

If they are going to be there they need to look like humans.

Orcs are traditionally an enemy of man and as such anything that resembles one is not going to survive very long.

Tieflings are demon (devil) spawn. I don't have demons or devils just walking around making babies, so that race is going to be so rare as to be non existent. If they look anything like the ones from4e they to will be kos in my games.

It's all well and good that people like variety, but is there any reason to put monsters in the player's hand book? I'd prefer some other good and gentle race be used to expand the choices, Half orcs are traditional but I still have issue with them.

 

[delericho]

There are two pitfalls with this approach. First, DDI is mostly 4E fans, so the impression may be skewed. It is possible pathfinder, 3e and old school folks have different preferences on races. If they want to unify the base, they need to make sure the race selection works for all these groups.

Impossible. If they include the Tiefling but not the Gnome, they will anger one side; if they include the Gnome but not the Tiefling, they will anger the other. The only way to satisfy both camps would seem be to include all the previously-core races: Human, Dragonborn, Dwarf, Elf, Gnome, Half-elf, Half-orc, Halfling and Tiefling.

But even the all-inclusive model won't work. The Dragonborn, in particular, have some very vocal fans, but there is also a very vocal group who very definitely don't want them included in the core.

If the 'big 4' are indeed so overwhelmingly popular (which I'm honestly not certain I believe, but don't have any actual reason to doubt), then perhaps the way forward is to include only those in the core, and make everything else an option.

The second is this: just because a race or option is rarely used, that doesn't mean people dont want it to be there in the core book. There are races I play only rarely but very much like and want in the core game.

Fair enough, but if each race takes up a 2-page spread (as in 4e), then for each race you include you're going to have to cut something substantial to make room. Is your desire for races that you rarely use (or, worse, ones you're going to houserule out of your game) really so great that you're willing to lose, say, magic items from the core entirely?