D&D 5E Halflings are the 7th most popular 5e race

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't understand why "blank canvases do not count" when they "certainly can do anything," or why archetypes need to be rigid instead of flexible, or what any of this has to do with Tolkien. You're giving this topic a lot more thought and consideration than I am.

Because if blank canvases count, then there shouldn't be any races at all. Every archetype you could possibly conceive of--every archetype you can't conceive of, every archetype logical or illogical, already exists. Hence, no races should exist except human. Since (I presume!) you agree that having some races that aren't human is valuable, blank canvases do not count as covering an archetype.

Hence my example with the pre-painted canvas in gold or black (or blue, if you wish to paint the blue hour), and B:TAS with its black paper. That you can add black color on top of white paper is not the same as having black paper to begin with.

But earlier you wrote,

and I still disagree with that statement.

And I amended that with both (a) my statement that dwarves just don't fill the niche as I understand it--no one (as far as I'm aware, anyway) would conflate dwarves with Klingons, for example, who are the ultra-archetypal "proud warrior race"!--and (b) that the fact that they are short is a serious knock against them for most folks, including me. It's not a knock that totally drives everyone away; I know multiple people personally who love dwarves and prefer to play them when possible. But it is something to consider.

These things are not the same. Splatbooks and optionals should of course be held to that same high standard; but they shouldn't be marketed as "core".

If they are held to the same high standard, what is the difference? I genuinely don't understand. The book is optional either way; you pick up what you want and ignore what you want. Why is it suddenly offensive to call Dragon Magazine content or splatbook content "core"? All it means is what you've just said--it's held to exactly the same quality standards as everything else.

And, do note, this is a player phrase. I don't think WotC ever used it themselves. I could be wrong, but I've certainly never seen anyone quote anything from WotC saying it. It's just a descriptor used for telling people "ALL content is held to the same standard as the PHB/DMG/MM." And they almost always succeeded at that! There's variation within and between books, but compared to 3e, 4e absolutely knocked it out of the park for offering high-quality content, with no need to ban or rewrite anything, in almost every book. Even Dragon Magazine content was almost always really solid. Some of my favorite stuff is from there, actually, like the expanded mount options for Paladins (you can get a friggin' silver dragon mount in Epic tier, how awesome is that?!)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The gnome is obviously a monster

That's what the ladies all tell me. Rawr.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Move humans to the monster manual.

No tiefling ever made this thread happen.

 

[Oofta]

That's what the ladies all tell me. Rawr.

Right before they deliver the major burn that turns you into ash?

 

[CleverNickName]

Because if blank canvases count, then there shouldn't be any races at all. Every archetype you could possibly conceive of--every archetype you can't conceive of, every archetype logical or illogical, already exists. Hence, no races should exist except human. Since (I presume!) you agree that having some races that aren't human is valuable, blank canvases do not count as covering an archetype.

This is where I would mention the Custom Lineage rules from Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, and get the usual responses.

Anyway. This is a different argument from the previous one about Dragonborn being the first to allow a proud, warlike character. I maintain that humans were the first--or dwarves, if you disqualify humans for whatever reason. We've had proud, warlike humans and dwarves in D&D for almost half a century.

 

[Lanefan]

Because if blank canvases count, then there shouldn't be any races at all. Every archetype you could possibly conceive of--every archetype you can't conceive of, every archetype logical or illogical, already exists. Hence, no races should exist except human.

One could - and some would - argue that's the direction in which WotC are incrementally going, whether intentionally or otherwise.

If they are held to the same high standard, what is the difference? I genuinely don't understand.

The high- or low-ness of standards isn't the point; the point is that core is by definition "must-have" to play the game while optional is not. Which means, when we're told "everything is core" we're being told that every release will immediately become a must-have in order to play the game.

And, do note, this is a player phrase. I don't think WotC ever used it themselves. I could be wrong, but I've certainly never seen anyone quote anything from WotC saying it.

Pretty sure the first time(s) I heard the phrase was in/from WotC marketing....quite possibly at the same GenCon seminar where they told us 3.xe (that at the time they'd been pushing for years) was garbage.

It's a long time since I looked but the phrase might even show up in the DMG I. I don't recall.

There's variation within and between books, but compared to 3e, 4e absolutely knocked it out of the park for offering high-quality content, with no need to ban or rewrite anything, in almost every book. Even Dragon Magazine content was almost always really solid. Some of my favorite stuff is from there, actually, like the expanded mount options for Paladins (you can get a friggin' silver dragon mount in Epic tier, how awesome is that?!)

The physical production quality was pretty good across the board, and remains so through 5e from all I can tell. The material presented and-or the manner of presentation...well, I suppose that's open to opinion.

 

[Parmandur]

If you only buy the core rulebooks, once you have bought them you are no longer a customer, WotC isn't interested in you. It's only the repeat customers they want to keep happy.

Actually, it's not confusing new customers that they want to avoid. Apparently, the PHB 1/2/3 model scared off customers and reduced sales, because it was confusing to people.

 

[Scribe]

The issue is whether "I got mine and made sure others didn't get theirs." It saddens me greatly to see it laid out so clearly, but there really isn't another explanation here for the intense and sustained yet seemingly contradictory responses.

Absolutely, and you see it around here from a few folks all the time.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

And yet, we still (as shown in this very thread) get people complaining about how gnomes, the least popular of all "core" races, got shifted to PHB2 in 4e. Even though other highly popular options also did (Sorcerer, Druid, Barbarian, Bard, devas which are essentially aasimar, half-orcs), and you never see folks complain about that, or at least I haven't.

...

The issue is whether "I got mine and made sure others didn't get theirs." It saddens me greatly to see it laid out so clearly, but there really isn't another explanation here for the intense and sustained yet seemingly contradictory responses.

This feels like a leap and an uncharitable one at that.

I noped out of 4E and was saddened by the exclusion of gnomes from the 4E PHB, but I absolutely don't want people to not enjoy the things that they do. (That's why I was largely absent from these boards during the 4E vs. Pathfinder era -- neither of those games were mine and I didn't want to be that person who showed up in every thread to express disapproval of stuff other people like.)

Removing gnomes -- and every spell effect that didn't fit into a very simple framework of predefined ability effects -- was a signal that with 4E, WotC wasn't making a game that appealed to me. It appealed to a lot of people -- I know a ton of video game designers on games everyone here definitely knows -- and they adore 4E, even today. (Maybe it's huge with bus drivers, too, but game designers are the industry group I know that seems to have really embraced 4E.) And I'm happy for them, including for the games many of them still have going today.

But I am a color outside the lines guy and tricksy little dudes with niche appeal who cast illusions that require a ton of DM adjudication (as opposed to 4E's later-on stab at illusions that were basically just reskinning pre-existing ability effects) are my jam. (I've been playing the same gnome illusionist since the 3E era, through to the current day.)

It wouldn't have occurred to me to have viewed replacing dragonborn with gnomes as some sort of zero-sum game. WotC can add a lot more pages to a book than they currently do.

The sorcerer issue didn't occur to me to worry about, partly because I've never played a sorcerer, but partly because it was already clear that 4E was a different game than the kind I wanted to play, and had already left the party. Me stomping back in to find more things to be unhappy about would have been weird and unproductive, and needlessly crapping on a game that other people were happily playing.

TL;DR: People can be want different stuff than you without being bad guys because of it.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Well I hope the person who hated the Commoner class is happy with themselves. D:

Absolutely, and you see it around here from a few folks all the time.