D&D 5E What is the appeal of the weird fantasy races?

[Hussar]

Whoosh! Wow, I actually slogged through the last forty or so pages of this thread to catch up. Took me days. Some interesting arguments being made here.

But, there is one thing no one has pointed to:

Class

There are several classes and sub-classes in 5e D&D that create gross physical changes in the character. For those of you who think a dragonborn would be attacked on sight in a bar, do you similarly limit Draconic Bloodline Sorcerers? I mean, at 1st level, your draconic bloodline sorcerer has scales. Eventually you get freaking wings!

Tasha's has shape changing barbarians.

Do you also restrict Druids? How about monks that sprout an extra pair of astral arms? Swarm ranger? Soulknife? Classes that have ghosts, fey, demons and various other extra-dimesional goodies pop up when they rage/cast spells/ whatever?

I find it laughable that folks have gone one for 90+pages now about how it would be just impossible to add in a cat-person into their campaign, but, a character covered in a cloud of tiny fey that crawl all over him constantly would be perfectly fine. So, unless you are also stripping out about a third or so of the available classes in 5e, you really don't have much of a leg to stand on.

What really, and truly makes me giggle is I had this exact same argument on these boards about 15 years ago. During the 3e days anyway. And, at that time, I was the lone voice in the wilderness saying that maybe, just maybe, when the DM's sole issue with the race is that the DM just happens not to like that race, then DM's should compromise their vision to let players have what they want. Heck, it was that thread that earned me the reputation of being so anti-DM.

Now, here we are a decade or more later, same arguments are being had, but, there has been a shift among DM's to be more "say-yes" and less "NO, no compromising MY vision."

 

[Zardnaar]

Whoosh! Wow, I actually slogged through the last forty or so pages of this thread to catch up. Took me days. Some interesting arguments being made here.

But, there is one thing no one has pointed to:

Class

There are several classes and sub-classes in 5e D&D that create gross physical changes in the character. For those of you who think a dragonborn would be attacked on sight in a bar, do you similarly limit Draconic Bloodline Sorcerers? I mean, at 1st level, your draconic bloodline sorcerer has scales. Eventually you get freaking wings!

Tasha's has shape changing barbarians.

Do you also restrict Druids? How about monks that sprout an extra pair of astral arms? Swarm ranger? Soulknife? Classes that have ghosts, fey, demons and various other extra-dimesional goodies pop up when they rage/cast spells/ whatever?

I find it laughable that folks have gone one for 90+pages now about how it would be just impossible to add in a cat-person into their campaign, but, a character covered in a cloud of tiny fey that crawl all over him constantly would be perfectly fine. So, unless you are also stripping out about a third or so of the available classes in 5e, you really don't have much of a leg to stand on.

What really, and truly makes me giggle is I had this exact same argument on these boards about 15 years ago. During the 3e days anyway. And, at that time, I was the lone voice in the wilderness saying that maybe, just maybe, when the DM's sole issue with the race is that the DM just happens not to like that race, then DM's should compromise their vision to let players have what they want. Heck, it was that thread that earned me the reputation of being so anti-DM.

Now, here we are a decade or more later, same arguments are being had, but, there has been a shift among DM's to be more "say-yes" and less "NO, no compromising MY vision."

Doesn't have to be attacked on sight they're just not included.

Only 4 races and arcetypes are core so some of the stupid stuff is easy enough to leave out.

A half elf dragon sorcerer still appears as an exotic looking half elf. Might get harassed on sight sure.

You're not the spawn of the devil made flesh walking around.

 

[Hussar]

I personally take umbrage at the accusation that if I limit options in my campaign I am considered selfish and viking hatted. DM's make the game happen. I DM and I don't want to eliminate anyone's fun. I do want to run a cohesive campaign that makes sense to me. I can (and have) successfully do both without being an evil selfish viking hat DM. It is exhausting having to constantly explain this to people.

See, this is a serious misreading of what's being said. Time and again, everyone in this thread has agreed that there are perfectly reasonable, understandable and even positive reasons for adding limitations to the game.

For example, if adding something to the game is going to force the DM to rewrite large swaths of the campaign and cause all sorts of work for the DM, I doubt anyone here would have a problem with the DM saying no. For example, I had a player in a Scarred Lands campaign that wanted to play an elven cleric. Thing is, the main schtick of elves in Scarred Lands is that they have no god and that they are a dying race because of it. If you could simply pick a new god, it pretty much causes the entire raison d'etre of elves in Scarred Lands to fall apart. So, I veto'd the idea.

Or, if you're running a hexploration game where tracking supplies, and things like disease and exhaustion are a major threat in the campaign, a warforged character (particularly 3e) is too powerful - they don't sleep, don't eat and are immune to disease. Again, the player is asking the DM to rewrite a huge part of the campaign, and, well, that's not fair to expect of the DM.

OTOH, if you're running that same hexploration game, and I step up with a Tabaxi character, even though you hadn't added tabaxi to your world, it's not really a huge deal. A couple of paragraphs about how Tabaxi fit into the setting and poof, problem solved. If the only reason that someone is saying "NO TABAXI" is because they have this mental block that anything that isn't chained to the corpse of Tolkien is somehow not something that should be in D&D, then, well, it might be time to step back and do a bit of self evaluation as the DM and think, "Is this really a hill I need to die on?" Because, frankly, an energized, enthusiastic player is probably the best thing to bring to the table. Pooh poohing their enthusiasm just because I happen not to like it is a pretty dick move.

 

[Zardnaar]

See, this is a serious misreading of what's being said. Time and again, everyone in this thread has agreed that there are perfectly reasonable, understandable and even positive reasons for adding limitations to the game.

For example, if adding something to the game is going to force the DM to rewrite large swaths of the campaign and cause all sorts of work for the DM, I doubt anyone here would have a problem with the DM saying no. For example, I had a player in a Scarred Lands campaign that wanted to play an elven cleric. Thing is, the main schtick of elves in Scarred Lands is that they have no god and that they are a dying race because of it. If you could simply pick a new god, it pretty much causes the entire raison d'etre of elves in Scarred Lands to fall apart. So, I veto'd the idea.

Or, if you're running a hexploration game where tracking supplies, and things like disease and exhaustion are a major threat in the campaign, a warforged character (particularly 3e) is too powerful - they don't sleep, don't eat and are immune to disease. Again, the player is asking the DM to rewrite a huge part of the campaign, and, well, that's not fair to expect of the DM.

OTOH, if you're running that same hexploration game, and I step up with a Tabaxi character, even though you hadn't added tabaxi to your world, it's not really a huge deal. A couple of paragraphs about how Tabaxi fit into the setting and poof, problem solved. If the only reason that someone is saying "NO TABAXI" is because they have this mental block that anything that isn't chained to the corpse of Tolkien is somehow not something that should be in D&D, then, well, it might be time to step back and do a bit of self evaluation as the DM and think, "Is this really a hill I need to die on?" Because, frankly, an energized, enthusiastic player is probably the best thing to bring to the table. Pooh poohing their enthusiasm just because I happen not to like it is a pretty dick move.

It's not a dick move.

If I advertise a game as Tolkein inspired races only (half elf is fine) , no evil races it gives you a fairly good idea what to expect.

If you don't like that don't sign up.

 

[Hussar]

Doesn't have to be attacked on sight they're just not included.

Only 4 races and arcetypes are core so some of the stupid stuff is easy enough to leave out.

A half elf dragon sorcerer still appears as an exotic looking half elf. Might get harassed on sight sure.

You're not the spawn of the devil made flesh walking around.

Who said half elf? I'm human. But, now I've got scales. So, by the definitions in this thread, I should be attacked on sight because I'm obviously not human, nor am I a member of the other 4 "acceptable" races. Heck, I've got scales and my buddy has angelic wings (Divine Soul). We're both obviously not human. But, it's perfectly fine since that's class and not race? Really?

 

[Zardnaar]

Who said half elf? I'm human. But, now I've got scales. So, by the definitions in this thread, I should be attacked on sight because I'm obviously not human, nor am I a member of the other 4 "acceptable" races. Heck, I've got scales and my buddy has angelic wings (Divine Soul). We're both obviously not human. But, it's perfectly fine since that's class and not race? Really?

If someone was running a really xenophobic game sure.

It's usually monstrous races though. Orcs, Tieflings, Drow etc.

Maybe not get attacked on site but not allowed in certain locations or otherwise inconvenienced.

Doesn't bother me if on some world's they invert thing eg the Drow are the good aligned ones and normal elves are evil.

FR may as well be Drowland now but early Drizzt novels he got a hard time.

 

[Hussar]

It's not a dick move.

If I advertise a game as Tolkein inspired races only (half elf is fine) , no evil races it gives you a fairly good idea what to expect.

If you don't like that don't sign up.

But, D&D half elves are not related to Tolkien at all though. Elrond is not a D&D half-elf, despite the name. So, right off the bat, you're deviating from Tolkien. And, if half-elves are acceptable, why not a shifter then? After all, what is Beorn if not a shifter? And, frankly, in a Tolkien sense, what does "no evil races" mean, since Men are quite capable of being evil.

My point is, it's almost never cut and dried.

 

[Zardnaar]

But, D&D half elves are not related to Tolkien at all though. Elrond is not a D&D half-elf, despite the name. So, right off the bat, you're deviating from Tolkien. And, if half-elves are acceptable, why not a shifter then? After all, what is Beorn if not a shifter? And, frankly, in a Tolkien sense, what does "no evil races" mean, since Men are quite capable of being evil.

My point is, it's almost never cut and dried.

Now you're being picky.

Tolkeinesque game no monstrous races is fairly obvious what the DM wants.

Sure make that arguement if you like but the doors right there as well.

Can't follow basic instructions is often the sign if a troublesome player IME.

Eg character generation session 0 roll stats in front of DM.

Seems fairly clear.

Or Egypt game humans only plus anthromorphic races. No flyers.

Clear da?

 

[Hussar]

If someone was running a really xenophobic game sure.

It's usually monstrous races though. Orcs, Tieflings, Drow etc.

Maybe not get attacked on site but not allowed in certain locations or otherwise inconvenienced.

But, my Fiend Pact warlock is directly linked to demons and has no problems getting a drink. And, again, you're focusing on a single example. There are about a dozen sub-classes that have gross physical changes. Do you similarly limit these as well? If not, why not? And, if not, how is that not a pretty clear contradiction? It's perfectly okay to be descended from a Red Dragon as a sorcerer, but, not perfectly acceptable to be descended from a Red Dragon as a dragonborn at the same time?

See, this is why you folks have been getting so much push back in this thread. It looks, from the outside at least, like you guys have actually given this extremely little thought, but, simply said, "Well, this is what I did back then, so, why not now?" with any apparent contradictions just conveniently ignored.

 

[Zardnaar]

But, my Fiend Pact warlock is directly linked to demons and has no problems getting a drink. And, again, you're focusing on a single example. There are about a dozen sub-classes that have gross physical changes. Do you similarly limit these as well? If not, why not? And, if not, how is that not a pretty clear contradiction? It's perfectly okay to be descended from a Red Dragon as a sorcerer, but, not perfectly acceptable to be descended from a Red Dragon as a dragonborn at the same time?

See, this is why you folks have been getting so much push back in this thread. It looks, from the outside at least, like you guys have actually given this extremely little thought, but, simply said, "Well, this is what I did back then, so, why not now?" with any apparent contradictions just conveniently ignored.

No you're assuming I allow fiend pact warlocks in the game. Or even warlocks.

Fiend pact warlocks can easily blend in as well, same with evil cleric.