Tiefling and half-orc should not be in the PHB

[Holy Bovine]

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

He's a gamer - of course this is the way things should be!!

I don't like polymorph - ban it!!

 

[avin]

I'll take that bet.

I mean, you may be right if you only count 4E players. But you didn't say that. And there doesn't seem to be any reason to only count 4E players.

Even counting only 4E players my bet remains: I bet there's more people playing Dragonborn than Halflings. Or gnomes.

Dragons fascinate some people. Half-dragons and Disciple of Dragons were popular choices on 3.5.

But Savage Species did use level adjustment. There were dead levels in savage progressions to offset them.

You are right, my memory betrays me.

I don't know about the relative popularity of Halflings vs Dragonborn, but there is one almost overwhelming reason Halflings should be in the core. It's coming to a cinema near you in December.

And there will be a lot of people creating Dwarf Fighters. Halflings? I'm not so sure... when LOTR launched I remember a massive wave of Elven Rangers playing on my tables... Halflings? Just one.

Dropping any of the 'big 4' races would be a huge mistake.

Agreed. I find weird people complaining about more options in a RPG game...

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I certainly think it's a lot easier to include every race that was included in the first PHB of every edition, than it is with classes that they're trying to do. And it's really only the Dragonborn that are 4e, though you can sort of argue they're 3e because Races of the Dragon. Tieflings are a completely 2e race, even though the art depicting them just sucks in 4e compared to more varied the 2e art.

And D&D needs to move away from strict adherence to Tolkien. And the argument "well they should be milking the Hobbit" is not a good one either, because what if it doesn't do as well as they think. Where does that leave them? Should they just drop clerics that heal, and barbarians because that's not Tolkien? Or do away with monsters such as Beholders and Mind Flayers because they're not Tolkien? Same argument applies for races that aren't Humans, Elves, Dwarves or Halflings.

They should instead include races that are D&D because it's D&D.

I say the more races the better.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

As long as the classes they regulate to the DMV are supported, I can live with the weirder races being in the DMV. But it they just toss them back there whatever with way because "nobody wants to be an orc". What they did with 4E was terrible. Just tossed some races in the back of the book. No sense of balance. No racial feats. Just "here's your shifter" Even the DMs couldn't use them.

Back to the PHB. D&D should be D&D. The PHB should contain all the races you'd expect in 75% of the adventurer taverns and civilized kingdoms of the settings. It would be sad to me if we get a bunch of stretchy skrinky humans.

 

[Incenjucar]

2E and 4E tieflings really should be made into seperate races, or at least subraces of a general "planetouched" race group. They're both perfectly good concepts on their own.

Relying on Tolkein is really, really sad. There is so much more to fantasy than one man's works. We don't need to drool so much over a single fantasy franchise that we start getting elven cybernetics rules again like we did in 2E. LotR should be represented, sure, but not the focus of the game. LotR already has its own RPG.

 

[avin]

Tieflings are a completely 2e race, even though the art depicting them just sucks in 4e compared to more varied the 2e art.

I can't stand 4E tieflings... in my mind they're still Di'Terlizzi tieflings and Bael Turath does not exist.

One thing is for sure... races in DDN PHB's should not have Level Adjustments. LA is just a headache with no much benefits.

I would just normalize races, instead. Nerfing strong abilities a bit, bumping weak ones.

PS. [MENTION=63508]Minigiant[/MENTION] Elven accuracy rocks and should be in.

 

[CasvalRemDeikun]

Going down to four races, which may or may not even be all that popular outside of the Human, totally betrays their whole Uniting the Editions ideal. Every edition of the game has had half-orcs in the PHB besides 2E. Tieflings and Dragonborn are some of the most popular races in 4E, and Tieflings have been popular since before Planescape. NO edition of the game has had just Humans, Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings outside the original version of the game. They would piss off the vast majority of their player base by going to just four. They want to sell books, and not having a fair amount of races (most people are looking for ten-twelve) is a surefire way to ensure they don't sell to a majority of players.

I sincerely hope they don't expect me to buy some stupid-f'ing box in order to play the game too, PHB should have all the base options and modules to fit the play styles of each edition. If they want to release a box for people that want a basic experience, they can do it as a separate, not-required product.

 

[delericho]

Well then your goblins aren't humanoids. They are monster fey.

No moreso than Eladrin.

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.

Why, exactly?

Players have a huge array of game elements to play with. 4e has dozens of playable races, dozens of classes, and hundreds of powers. 3e likewise. 5e, after an initial period when they just haven't got around to releasing everything yet, will no doubt also have a huge array of options.

You have enough. It is absolutely not unreasonable for the DM to simply say, "these options are off-limits."

 

[steeldragons]

Players have a huge array of game elements to play with. 4e has dozens of playable races, dozens of classes, and hundreds of powers. 3e likewise. 5e, after an initial period when they just haven't got around to releasing everything yet, will no doubt also have a huge array of options.

You have enough. It is absolutely not unreasonable for the DM to simply say, "these options are off-limits."

Agreed. A DM, any I daresay "good" DM, knows how to say "No"...or NOT. If they like playin' with the kitchen sink of races and the bathtub full of powers/feats/skills/classes/what have you, and that's what their group likes/wants. Then bully for you/them.

The entire point of building 5e as a "modular" system with options, options, options...if to ba able to say, "We're having this. We're not having that. We conducting this portion of play with these rules but not those" and each DM/group can make things just the way they want.

The arguments "this MUST" and "that HAS TO be in" to make 3e-ers or 4e-ers or Old Skoolers happy" is all, really, a) completely moot until we see what actually IS in the new game and b) a bunch of nonsense. If the game is going to offer your an optional module to play what you want to play, then who cares if this is "core" or that is in the "default" in the next PHB. You'll still be able to play the game you like.

Modular. Options. Build and play the game as you want it. And stop wasting everyone's time with "this has to be in or I won't play it...it won't be fair to my generation of gamers...or your generation of gamers...or your setting's are stupid...or my half-dragonborn/half-vampire/half-paladin warlock is sooo cool it HAS to have multiple pages of rules the way I want it...or halflings/hobbits are soooo yesterday they should be shot....or else!"

I have my preferences. I have my opinions of what might work best, or make a game "most fun" for me. As previously stated, I think Eladrin were a pointless addition to the game. But...

The history of the game did not start with 3 or 4e...what came before was not "useless" or "wrong". By the same token, nor did the game end after 2e. What came after is not "badwrongfun" for many people...an entire generation of gamers, at this point.

Because 3.x is what you [and I'm using the communal "you" throughout here, delericho, not at all meaning you, specifically] like does not make it the end all be all. Because 1e is what I like does not make it that either.

Saying "what if they did XYZ" or "I'd like to see ABC" is all fun and cool. But arguments about what should and shouldn't be "in" are pointless at this stage of the [not yet made/published!] game.

As always, play...and defend...what you like. But not at the expense of everyone else's preferences, playstyle or game system of choice or the game's full history.

That's all, I think...on that...and apologies for veering off topic. I'm spending too much time in these "New Horizons" threads.
--SD

 

[nightwalker450]

I'm for more options, and let GM's sort them out.

Personally Warforged are always very popular in my home game (we tend towards Eberron style or at least built on ruins of technomagic civilizations), and my favorite race has become the Mul (if they just had a system for half-breeds I could do this on my own), I like the hardy, tireless race. But I know there needs to be limits as to what is included in the core.

I'm fine with all the 4e races, but if I had to choose between Gnome and Half-Orc, or Tiefling and Dragonborn... I'd rather wait for Tiefling's and Dragonborn.