D&D 5E criteria for new races to be added to the PHB

[gyor]

To me, it is simply a sign that WotC should stop wasting customers' money and reprinting stuff in different books. Each book should have fresh content.

Except different settings need Goblin Stats, so they reprint, alot, but if Goblins were in the PHB, that would free up space for fresh content in ERftLW, VGTM, and GMGtR. Because folks who want to play Goblins innRavnica, might not want to buy an Eberron book to do so, so Goblins end up keeping getting reprinted. If they were in the PHB, that wouldn't be an issue.

 

[gyor]

That's heavily biased toward traditional settings, though (by that I mean, Greyhawk/Blackmoor/Mystara/Dragonlance/Forgotten Realms/Middle-earth). Those are in the Basic Rules and the Starter Set.

It's also biased against later editions of the games. PHB should satisfy folks to build characters from their previous editions relatively easily. Tiefling and Dragonborn were in 4e PHB, so they needed to be in 5e PHB to allow those player's to rebuild without waiting until, say, Volo's Guide to Monsters, to make that core character a thing.

FR should not be on that list, it has lots of Tieflings, Dragonborn nations, and more. Its accumlated stuff from every edition of the game and borrowed stuff from a variety of other settings and even eaten other settings whole. I will give you Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Mystara, and Blackmoor as Traditonal Settings, although Dragonlance and Mystara have alot of unique races of their own (although FR stole Tortles from Mystara).

In fact Tieflings, Genasai, Aasimar, Goliaths, and Dragonborn are argueably more linked to FR then any other setting. Tieflings, Aasimar, and Genasai were inherited from Planescape (which was highly linked to FR anyways), and have been featured heavily in FR including novels for alot longer then Planescape was ever a supported setting, I mean from at least 2nd edition I think, definately at least 3rd edition. FR is the first Setting to have Goliaths, their first appearance was in a generic races of... book, after that they appeared in an FR novel, then after that they appeared in the PHB2 of 4e. A previous version of Dragonborn appeared in 3.5e in FR, but they were very different. Then the current form of Dragonborn appeared in 4e in Nentir Vale, FR, and to a lesser extent Eberron and Darksun.

 

[MGibster]

That's heavily biased toward traditional settings, though (by that I mean, Greyhawk/Blackmoor/Mystara/Dragonlance/Forgotten Realms/Middle-earth). Those are in the Basic Rules and the Starter Set.

I know it's biased. Aren't all our opinions biased? I'm not going to pretend like my opinion is the gold standard or anything. Let's face it, no matter what goes in the game someone is going to have their favorite option unavailable. And from a practical point of view there's only so many races they can put into a book.

It's also biased against later editions of the games. PHB should satisfy folks to build characters from their previous editions relatively easily. Tiefling and Dragonborn were in 4e PHB, so they needed to be in 5e PHB to allow those player's to rebuild without waiting until, say, Volo's Guide to Monsters, to make that core character a thing.

And Gnomes were in 3rd edition and cut out in 4th edition. So you don't have to include it next time just because it was included in the past.

 

[MGibster]

I know that most players I know under the age of 30 would have skipped past dnd if the phb only had the core 4 races.

Which is somewhat surprising to me since the players I've gamed with in recent years who were under 30 typically stick to the basic races. Plenty of dwarfs and elves but not so many Goliaths or some of the other options.

IME, race matters a great deal in actual play. A Goliath and half-orc are almost never roleplayed the same, and Goliath players are eager to use Powerful Build, while half-orc players enjoy either playing into or against type with menacing and savage attacks.

That's not been my experience either. And I'm not sure what type there is with half-orc these days given D&D has distances themselves from the unfortunately implications rooted all the way back in 1st edition.

The two are as different IME as humans and dwarfs.

In my estimation humans and dwarfs in D&D really aren't all that different. But that's probably another thread.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

And Gnomes were in 3rd edition and cut out in 4th edition. So you don't have to include it next time just because it was included in the past.

Cutting out Gnomes, Bards, Barbarians, Monks, Druids, Half-Orcs, Sorcerers and Monks from the 1st PHB is one of the many contributing factors for why 4e is looked down on. I know that every one of those did come back in PHB2 and PHB3, but by then the damage was done.

 

[MGibster]

Cutting out Gnomes, Bards, Barbarians, Monks, Druids, Half-Orcs, Sorcerers and Monks from the 1st PHB is one of the many contributing factors for why 4e is looked down on. I know that every one of those did come back in PHB2 and PHB3, but by then the damage was done.

I can personally attest that the lack of druid and barbarian was one of the many reasons I avoided 4th edition.

 

[Hussar]

Even if there is 100% practical value to it? I mean I'm not suggesting adding every possible race, I have an 100% logical, practical, unbiased criteria that can be applied race by race to see if it makes sense to put them in the PHB. Surely tradition is not the only criteria that should decide this, but practical benefical improvements to the game and the improve effiemcy and duplication should have an impact too.

And lets be honest even the traditional PHB races are only Tolkienist in only the most superifical ways.

Oh, hey, you're preaching to the converted. I have zero problem with including a shopping list of races in the PHB. Anything to break the Tolkien mold.

But, superficial or not, if it's not in Tolkien, you're battling WAY uphill to try to include it in the PHB. People still kvetch about tieflings and dragonborn in the PHB, despite one being part of the game for decades, and heck, even Dragonborn are 10 years old now. You want to put goblins or githyanki in the PHB? Good luck. The traditionalists will lose their freaking minds and declare your game "not D&D" faster than you can say svirfneblin.

 

[MGibster]

But, superficial or not, if it's not in Tolkien, you're battling WAY uphill to try to include it in the PHB. People still kvetch about tieflings and dragonborn in the PHB, despite one being part of the game for decades, and heck, even Dragonborn are 10 years old now. You want to put goblins or githyanki in the PHB? Good luck. The traditionalists will lose their freaking minds and declare your game "not D&D" faster than you can say svirfneblin.

I don't imagine folks who complain about the Dragonborn to the point where they turn away from the game were all that likely to play it to begin with. My issue with Tieflings, Dragonborn, and even more traditional races like Gnomes & elves is that I don't think they're appropriate for every campaign. But that's just the nature of D&D I guess.

 

[Mecheon]

I would also say not wanting Dragonborn or Tieflings is very much a place by place thing. You talk to folks who got into D&D via Critical Role or things like that and tell them you don't think Tieflings should be in the PHB and, well, you're gonna get laughed out

 

[Hussar]

Maybe the winds have finally shifted so that it will be acceptable to not worship at the altar of Tolkien when it comes to what is acceptable in the PHB. Would be nice. I've been asking this same question as G'yor since 3e came out.