Tiefling and half-orc should not be in the PHB

[steeldragons]

It may be my grognard showing <checks his fly>, but warforged shal always be the province of Eberron. If you're not playing in Eberron then warforged have no business being in the game...That's just my humble opinion.

Aside from that, when it comes to what races to include from the get go of DnD:TNG, less is more.

Give me 7-10 races that have a diverse number of individual abilities and/or specialities or interesting cultures.

That's enough.

For all of the rest...we just don't know how things will work yet. Will they have/use "LA"? Will they have built in Racial Special Abilities or lists of Racial Feats that are player's choice? We just don't know.

BUT, once the system is out, and you see how the different races will work...then it should be fairly simple to just make PCs of any race your game/DM wants to include.

You have an idea of what genasi can do...or nymphs...or gnolls or goblins or centaurs...whatever. Make something that is fairly "in line" with what the other races are capable of and have a ball.

If you're capable of thinking "outside the box" for the character concept, then I am sure you and your DM are more than capable of coming up with a fairly well "balanced" PC of whatever race you like. The books don't need to take up space telling you what they are.

They don't need to include everything for everyone could possibly want to play...else, you need to have a complete separate 200+ page "Monster Manual" of PC Races...and really, who wants that?

--SD

 

[Minigiant]

I agree, but I don't think "having stat adjustments" makes for a race being special. I would much prefer this to be handled by instead providing a load of powers/feats/items/whatever that are unique to the race. So, only dwarves get to take the "Son of the Mountain" power, only Halflings can take the "Refined Palate" feat, and only Elves can use a "Cloak of Elvenkind". Or whatever.

The rest of the specialness is really setting-specific stuff anyway, and I'm always wary about how much of that should be in the generic core rulebooks.

I also wanna more than just ability adjustments. That is why I like dragonborn. They are not just stretched and shrunk humans. They are dragon people with breath attacks
I think elves should be speedy beings that rarely miss be it sword, shot, or spell. I liked 4E's Elven accuracy. I almost wish it were more than once a encounter.

Disagree absolutely. My goblins aren't some other culture with their own distinct mores and traditions, alien but fundamentally knowable. My goblins are monsters - warped few spirits that fall through cracks in the Feywild into dark places of the world. They don't want your treasure, they can't be reasoned with; they want nothing other than to eat you. So, I'm sorry, but if you're playing in my game, you don't get to play a goblin, period.

I don't have a problem with monster PCs in general, but this has to remain an option under the DM's discretion. IMO, of course.

Well then your goblins aren't humanoids. They are monster fey. It is okay that they are monster fey. But if you introduce beings with a less alien, animalistic, or monstrous mindset; it is only fair that I have access to it as a player.

 

[Dausuul]

It may be my grognard showing <checks his fly>, but warforged shal always be the province of Eberron. If you're not playing in Eberron then warforged have no business being in the game...That's just my humble opinion.

I agree.

Aside from that, when it comes to what races to include from the get go of DnD:TNG, less is more.

Give me 7-10 races that have a diverse number of individual abilities and/or specialities or interesting cultures.

7-10 races is your idea of "less is more?" Wow.

My idea of "less is more" is one race: Humans. Or, failing that, 4 races: Human, elf, dwarf, halfling.

 

[Khaalis]

Disagree absolutely. My goblins aren't some other culture with their own distinct mores and traditions, alien but fundamentally knowable. My goblins are monsters - warped few spirits that fall through cracks in the Feywild into dark places of the world. They don't want your treasure, they can't be reasoned with; they want nothing other than to eat you. So, I'm sorry, but if you're playing in my game, you don't get to play a goblin, period.

I don't have a problem with monster PCs in general, but this has to remain an option under the DM's discretion. IMO, of course.

This is a a perfect example of what I was saying about Settings. Settings are all subjective, and every game is different. It really doesn't matter what is in the "book" when it comes to what people allow/disallow, like/dislike. One group may hate and disallow pecks as players even though they're in the PHB, but love and allow orcs even though they are a "monster". The problem seems to be coming down to WHO gets to say what is a "PHB Race" and what is a "Monster".

I am almost to the point of thinking that the PHB shouldn't include ANY races at all other than human. In reality, far too many people disagree on what is "monstrous" and what isn't. If you were to truly walk into an Elf, they'd be as alien to you as waking up to find your dog could talk. Yet they suffer form the "human with pointy ears" syndrome.

I have found over the years that basically ANY "Intelligent" species could be a player race (e.g. Palladium's Rifts). Perhaps the solution is to simply include humans in the PHB and then add a "{Race X} as a Player Race" entry to any race in the Monster Manual that could also be a player race, including elves, dwarves, orcs, etc.

It would then be up to the Setting Book (or the DM in a homebrew) to throw the switches by having a list of playable races in that setting. For instance Eberron has its own races that have become very popular but are setting specific. Should a Warforged be a "core" PHB race? Probably not, but the rules should be readily available for those gaming groups that want them, without having to wait X years for a new version of the setting to be released (if ever at all).

 

[Li Shenron]

But core doesn't have to be boring.
5E is a unity edition, yes. It should still be D&D. D&D is a game with a load of intelligent races walking around. Many of them are humanoid or somewhat humanoid. Is it top much to have 2 or 3 of the races than surround the kingdom playable if they aren't brainwashed into evil? There are goblins, orcs, drow, gnomes, and the like right over there but you can't be one?

What are you talking about? You CAN be one

I can only speak for the 3ed because I don't play 4e, but in the 3.0 DMG there already were guidelines about playing monstrous characters. They were not particularly detailed, and they obviously didn't have all of them, but if you just owned the three core books of 3ed (obviously you needed the monster manual for their stats) you could already play a goblin, an orc or a drow, and the latter was as fully detailed as the base elf, only in the DMG rather than the PHB.

There's a subtle but important difference with character stuff being in the DMG rather than the PHB. Put it in the PHB and everyone who is playing the game knows they are available player options. Put it in the DMG and at least you have the benefit of doubt that since it's the DM's book, you have at least to discuss a little about being permitted to use it.

 

[steeldragons]

7-10 races is your idea of "less is more?" Wow.

Well, I mean, the original 1e was 7. If you take into account Dragonborn, Tieflings and/or Eladrin <shudder> or Drow or something to round it up to 10 and make the 4e-ers happy...that's enough.

All of the other "Well, what about X" and "I want a Y and the 'rules' should let me/tell me how to do that!"

Even the "old school" list of 3 kinds of halflings, 6 (or was it more?) kinds of elves, "normal" and deep and forest gnomes, and later a "half-this" for practically ANYthing you could imagine from some extra-dimensional place (How many people, exactly, WERE shtuppin' the devil princes or some djinn?!), "half-vampires"???!!! Awuuuuh? Full blooded werewolves, etc. is an unnecessary amount of space and complication that "beginner's" of the [new] game do not need!

So in a "Let's take everything from every edition and keep everyone happy" kind of way...it is simply not feasible, or even possible, as "core" for a new system.

In that respect, yes, 7-10 is "Less" while still offering a suitably wide range of options for players.


--SD

 

[Klaus]

And still I can understand him.
A d&d group usually looks like a freak show.

Not according to the available data. In a seminar at GenCon, it was mentioned that the vast (and I mean vaaaaaast) majority of characters made up in the CB were humans.

 

[Mallus]

...6 (or was it more?) kinds of elves...

Let's see, from memory (# of elven races in AD&D, including UA)...

High
Gray
Wood
Wild
Valley
Dark

I believe it's 6!

 

[steeldragons]

I would also like to add my vote for guidelines to alternate human cultures.

My own world has 3 distinct Human cultural types, +2 two nations that are basically emalgamations of those, 1 xeno-phobic NPC human race and 1 "lost"/forgotten one (also not availabe for PCs).

My campaign world has a diverse number of separate non-human "races", something like 12 or so...but having at least a few different ways to "do" humans...and/or optional guidelines for doing so, would be a welcome addition to the game, imho.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I want to be able to start a Planescape game from day one.

I would too, but I doubt they'd have Githzerai, Bariaur or Aasimar and Genasi available from day one.