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

[Hussar]

/snip

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

Clear da?

So, this Egypt game, what exactly do you mean by that? Are we talking ancient Egypt, so that we're using stone weapons, no composite bows and whatnot? Or post conquest by the Hyksos who bring chariots, composite bows and bronze weapons? Are we using steel? So, now we're talking analagous to Roman Empire period Egypt, so, suddenly, things change rather a lot. After all, the Romans went all over the place an sold slaves to Egypt. Suddenly a proto-viking barbarian isn't actually much of a stretch (although Samurai is, fair enough).

Simply saying "Egypt" game is not exactly enough to work with and I wouldn't be terribly shocked to see classes and races being pitched.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Thus my point. The folks that are limiting races; are you also limiting classes? Do you have the same stringent requirements?

If you allow fiend pact warlocks, suddenly tieflings aren't exactly much of a stretch. And, if your idea of a tiefling is a cambion, well, at that point, what's the difference? Potato potahto. Ok, my tiefling is called a cambion. Sure. Yeah, like that made such a huge difference.

 

[Zardnaar]

So, this Egypt game, what exactly do you mean by that? Are we talking ancient Egypt, so that we're using stone weapons, no composite bows and whatnot? Or post conquest by the Hyksos who bring chariots, composite bows and bronze weapons? Are we using steel? So, now we're talking analagous to Roman Empire period Egypt, so, suddenly, things change rather a lot. After all, the Romans went all over the place an sold slaves to Egypt. Suddenly a proto-viking barbarian isn't actually much of a stretch (although Samurai is, fair enough).

Simply saying "Egypt" game is not exactly enough to work with and I wouldn't be terribly shocked to see classes and races being pitched.

Seems obvious.

Any player being a dick is just gonna get evicted for being a smart ass. See how that works?

 

[Aldarc]

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.

Tangent: half-elves do not seem so much in the likeness of Elrond Half-Elven, but, rather, the Numenoreans and later Dunedain: longer-lived elf-blooded/blessed humans with a greater presence. Or at least this seems them in the 3.5+ era interpretation with their Charisma bonuses.

 

[Hussar]

Seems obvious.

Any player being a dick is just gonna get evicted for being a smart ass. See how that works?

Hang on a tick here. In what way am I being a dick? I'm asking for clarification. Now, if you don't know much about Egyptian history, that's fine, no problems. Or, if you DO, that's fine too. But, considering that Egyptian history spans several thousand years, to the point where Cleopatra is closer to us timewise than to the original pyramid builders, then asking what an "Egyptian themed" campaign is isn't exactly a stretch here.

But, again, this seems to be the common refrain. Asking questions is to be discouraged. Any questioning is seen as "attacking" the DM when nothing could be further from the truth. It's perfectly reasonable to look at the DM's restrictions and then question why they exist.

For example, when I ran my Thule campaign (5e), I restricted classes to non-full casters. The base restriction was, no class with a cantrip. The players rightfully asked why I wanted such a strict restriction in the campaign and my answer was that I was trying to run a low magic campaign in 5e, where the party would be as close to a mundane party as 5e would allow. The players got on board with the concept and we went from there - I was specifically testing the system to see if you could do something and they agreed to test the system with me.

It turns out that 5e actually does work pretty well as a low magic game. Makes it far closer to a OSR game actually since healing is such an issue. As far as it went, the experiment was a success.

But, if DM's here are all about a "setting that makes sense" and that's their justification for restricting races, fair enough. But, it doesn't make a lot of sense to restrict races and then ignore classes. Now, if classes are also being restricted, fair enough. Otherwise it does seem a bit hypocritical to limit one and not the other.

DM: No, you cannot have a dragonborn in this town. They would freak out at that sight!
Players: Ok, well, my barbarian has yellow eagle eyes that are quite noticeable, the sorcerer has scales, the ranger has pixies crawling all over him and the rogue has ghosts floating around him. We walk into the bar.
DM: Well, you're all human, so, no problems.....

 

[Zardnaar]

Hang on a tick here. In what way am I being a dick? I'm asking for clarification. Now, if you don't know much about Egyptian history, that's fine, no problems. Or, if you DO, that's fine too. But, considering that Egyptian history spans several thousand years, to the point where Cleopatra is closer to us timewise than to the original pyramid builders, then asking what an "Egyptian themed" campaign is isn't exactly a stretch here.

But, again, this seems to be the common refrain. Asking questions is to be discouraged. Any questioning is seen as "attacking" the DM when nothing could be further from the truth. It's perfectly reasonable to look at the DM's restrictions and then question why they exist.

For example, when I ran my Thule campaign (5e), I restricted classes to non-full casters. The base restriction was, no class with a cantrip. The players rightfully asked why I wanted such a strict restriction in the campaign and my answer was that I was trying to run a low magic campaign in 5e, where the party would be as close to a mundane party as 5e would allow. The players got on board with the concept and we went from there - I was specifically testing the system to see if you could do something and they agreed to test the system with me.

It turns out that 5e actually does work pretty well as a low magic game. Makes it far closer to a OSR game actually since healing is such an issue. As far as it went, the experiment was a success.

But, if DM's here are all about a "setting that makes sense" and that's their justification for restricting races, fair enough. But, it doesn't make a lot of sense to restrict races and then ignore classes. Now, if classes are also being restricted, fair enough. Otherwise it does seem a bit hypocritical to limit one and not the other.

DM: No, you cannot have a dragonborn in this town. They would freak out at that sight!
Players: Ok, well, my barbarian has yellow eagle eyes that are quite noticeable, the sorcerer has scales, the ranger has pixies crawling all over him and the rogue has ghosts floating around him. We walk into the bar.
DM: Well, you're all human, so, no problems.....

It's fantasy ancient egypt so you have the usual D&D equipment.

Dragonborn don't get attacked on sight but I've only seen them once it's mostly a moot point.

They're treated as a "normal" race in current world. I don't overload my world's will h lots of PC races. That race may exist you may not get to play it. You might be allowed to play them once discovered eg Rakasta isle of Dread (Tabaxi stats idk).

Race might be restricted due to me hanics (to IP or UP), to good for the theme eg Warforged in DS.

Hell might ban them just based on the art. Might be because I don't want to keep track of 100 races

I don't really care because it's my game. Gamestore owner backs the DMs espicially the reliable ones. Haven't kicked anyone out in 18 months.

 

[Hussar]

Hell might ban them just based on the art.

See, I think it's this sort of thing that is somewhat more problematic. The other stuff is understandable and relatable and I'm sure most players would be perfectly understanding. No worries.

But, "I don't like the art" is perhaps a point where the player starts giving you the hairy eyeball and wondering just what other sorts of hangups are going to pop up. At least, that's been my experience. And, frankly, at that point, I'm thinking that perhaps, for the good of the game, because an enthusiastic player is worth a considerable amount, at that point, where, if you, the DM, are being that honest, maybe, just maybe, sucking it up and letting the player have his or her way is the better solution.

IOW, there are good reasons for banning stuff at the table and there are ... well, really, quite selfish reasons for doing so and I'm a lot less sympathetic to the selfish ones.

-------

Note on the "fantasy Egypt". If the concept of fantasy Egypt allows for all the things that you find in the PHB equipmentwise, it's looking a lot less like Egypt than "fantasy Europe with different architecture". So, if equipment isn't controlled, classes aren't controlled, and it's only races, yeah, I can see players being kinda uncertain where things are going. I mean, if it's perfectly fine that my character is a full plate wearing, shield toting horse riding fighter, then, well, the short side step to Samurai isn't really much of a stretch.

 

[Mecheon]

Hell might ban them just based on the art.

If we're going to be banning stuff based on art, then 5E halflings should be getting the axe before most anything

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Note on the "fantasy Egypt". If the concept of fantasy Egypt allows for all the things that you find in the PHB equipmentwise, it's looking a lot less like Egypt than "fantasy Europe with different architecture". So, if equipment isn't controlled, classes aren't controlled, and it's only races, yeah, I can see players being kinda uncertain where things are going. I mean, if it's perfectly fine that my character is a full plate wearing, shield toting horse riding fighter, then, well, the short side step to Samurai isn't really much of a stretch.

Yeah, combining Egypt and medieval fantasy gives you a fantastical version of the Fatimid Caliphate which, while an interesting idea (Bring on the half-elf twelver shia cleric), is probably not what most have in mind.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

At this point I honestly regret making this post to begin with. It started from a frustration on proliferation of race options to the point of being incomprehensible to me. It was definitely based from personal apprehension and was misguided in that it was unfairly accusatory on my behalf. I have and do apologize for that. But at a certain point the thread has morphed into a war between DM and Player rights.

They always do!