Tiefling and half-orc should not be in the PHB

[Tallifer]

I didn't like it when the half-orc appeared in 3e, and I liked it even less when i saw Tiefling in 4e. These types of half races should just be stuffed in some add-on book somewhere. Give me the basic races in the PHB: Human, elf, halfling, and dwarf.

The reason is that I usually don't play with half-monster races, and I am tired of hearing "but it's in the Player's Handbook..." anytime I form a group to play in my local book store.

The Red Starter Box should be very simple with four races and four classes, no feats, no powers, no skills, no themes, no exotic weapons. This will be great for new players and pleasing to the Old School.

But the (almost simultaneously published) Advanced Players' Handbook should offer a full array of choices. This will be good for experienced players who like options, some familiar stuff and a great mixture of everything.

 

[Li Shenron]

I can still play my minotaur wizard or my goblin paladin, right?

Sure.

You're going to have a very hard time with the minotaur because of its ECL.
You're going to have problems with both in civilized communities because of your monstrous nature.
I might be against the goblin paladin depending on the how the specific campaign treats goblins (I usually make them more like "gremlins" i.e. evil prankster fey-types, in which case a paladin is nearly impossible to make it work).

It's not combinations of race+class that disturb me, but instead the nature of some races. In fact I'm not banning them as PC races, I simply don't want to see them in my setting world outright

 

[Khaalis]

It's not combinations of race+class that disturb me, but instead the nature of some races. In fact I'm not banning them as PC races, I simply don't want to see them in my setting world outright

The problem here is that "setting" is ALL subjective.

I think the real problem here is that some people only see their fantasy as HAVING to be classic Tolkienesque settings - thus Elf, Human, Halfling and Dwarf with everything else being a "monster". I don't think that D&D needs to remain clinging to the shirt tail of Tolkien anymore. Fantasy has grown since then.

Some people, myself included, prefer to stretch our fantasy outside that (in our opinion) over-done stereotype. What if instead of being solitary recluses, dragons acted more like "human" psychology? They'd rule the world. What if you looked at humans as a product of hominid evolution and are homo-sapiens evolved from orangutans and chimps, and then said orcs were of the same evolutionary tree but are say homo-neandethalensis evolved from golrillas, and halflings are homo-floresiensis evolved from monkeys? Also, what about worlds like Dragonlance were ogres and minotaurs ARE a part of society and not "monsters"?

So yes, setting is all subjective, but I think it is a bad choice to pigeonhole D&D into the Tolkien setting mold on only 4 "core races" and everything else is the "exception".

JMHO. YMMV.

 

[Grydan]

I'm sorry variant, but I think it's a fairly safe bet that tieflings and half-orcs will be in the first player's book.

Along with every other race that's ever been in a PHB1 or equivalent.

And probably the drow, too, just because.

 

[Minigiant]

Sure.

You're going to have a very hard time with the minotaur because of its ECL.
You're going to have problems with both in civilized communities because of your monstrous nature.
I might be against the goblin paladin depending on the how the specific campaign treats goblins (I usually make them more like "gremlins" i.e. evil prankster fey-types, in which case a paladin is nearly impossible to make it work).

It's not combinations of race+class that disturb me, but instead the nature of some races. In fact I'm not banning them as PC races, I simply don't want to see them in my setting world outright

I can deal with everything but the ECL.
ECL needs to DIE IN A FIRE!

The problem here is that "setting" is ALL subjective.

I think the real problem here is that some people only see their fantasy as HAVING to be classic Tolkienesque settings - thus Elf, Human, Halfling and Dwarf with everything else being a "monster". I don't think that D&D needs to remain clinging to the shirt tail of Tolkien anymore. Fantasy has grown since then.

Some people, myself included, prefer to stretch our fantasy outside that (in our opinion) over-done stereotype. What if instead of being solitary recluses, dragons acted more like "human" psychology? They'd rule the world. What if you looked at humans as a product of hominid evolution and are homo-sapiens evolved from orangutans and chimps, and then said orcs were of the same evolutionary tree but are say homo-neandethalensis evolved from golrillas, and halflings are homo-floresiensis evolved from monkeys? Also, what about worlds like Dragonlance were ogres and minotaurs ARE a part of society and not "monsters"?

So yes, setting is all subjective, but I think it is a bad choice to pigeonhole D&D into the Tolkien setting mold on only 4 "core races" and everything else is the "exception".

JMHO. YMMV.

Exactly.

It's boooooooring seeing the same 10 characters with different personalities over and over.

D&D needs to let Tolkien go. It's okay to be your own thing. Dwarf fighter, dwarf clerics, elf finesse or archery warriors, elven wizards and halfing sneaky guys should not be 99% of the nonhuman characters.

 

[Remathilis]

Half-orcs have been in 1/2 the PHBs so far. They're as PHB as gnomes or half-elves.

 

[vagabundo]

Thiefling and Dragonborn have been popular. I wouldn't be against half orcs, but I think there needs to be some advice about integrating them with the default setting.

With races only taking up a small amount of space I do not see a good reason for leaving them out.

It is really up to the DM and the setting to restrict ones that don't fit.

 

[Khaalis]

Personally I'd like to see the half-Elf and Half-Orc go the way of the dodo. I'd much rather see only "full stock" races (i.e. Elves, Humans, Orcs) with the possibility of taking racial feats like Human-blood, Elf-blood, Orc-blood, Dwarf-blood, etc. to gain the mixed breeds. It would also allow differentiation such as the half-elf that is more elf then human (Elf with Human-blood feat) or vice versa.

 

[Li Shenron]

The problem here is that "setting" is ALL subjective.

I think the real problem here is that some people only see their fantasy as HAVING to be classic Tolkienesque settings - thus Elf, Human, Halfling and Dwarf with everything else being a "monster". I don't think that D&D needs to remain clinging to the shirt tail of Tolkien anymore. Fantasy has grown since then.

Some people, myself included, prefer to stretch our fantasy outside that (in our opinion) over-done stereotype. What if instead of being solitary recluses, dragons acted more like "human" psychology? They'd rule the world. What if you looked at humans as a product of hominid evolution and are homo-sapiens evolved from orangutans and chimps, and then said orcs were of the same evolutionary tree but are say homo-neandethalensis evolved from golrillas, and halflings are homo-floresiensis evolved from monkeys? Also, what about worlds like Dragonlance were ogres and minotaurs ARE a part of society and not "monsters"?

So yes, setting is all subjective, but I think it is a bad choice to pigeonhole D&D into the Tolkien setting mold on only 4 "core races" and everything else is the "exception".

JMHO. YMMV.

You are forgetting that we're talking about core, the first PHB, i.e. the starting point.

Moving away from a classical view (both mechanics and flavor) is exactly what caused problems to 4e. You, me and everybody else who's been playing D&D long enough may want to move further to uncharted territories. But we all start from the same starting point to even define what would be original, we may want to go towards different directions, and there's a lot of others who don't feel the need to or are just starting to play D&D for the first time.

Trying something new in the core means to drag everybody else into the same direction, which is only one in thousands possible directions. Let campaign settings take care of that (we will never have too many of them), and supplements provide sparse bits for each DM to craft their own. But the core desperately needs to be stereotypically D&D, and recent history has simply proved that.

 

[avin]

In fact, I think the gray elf, wood elf, and drow sub-races are probably played more than the tiefling and half-orc. Plus of all the lesser played 'core races' of the past, gnome would take precedence.

Not everyone like Tolkienesque games.

There were far more Tieflings, Aasimars and Dragonborn characters in the games I play than Dwarves and Gnomes or Halflings. And I play since AD&D2E.

I've never seen Gray Elf and Wood Elf at table.

I'm in for a PHB1 with at least 10 races.

In fact, I think the most popular races would be Humans, Elves, Drow and Dwarves.