A Concern About Wizard's Race Designs of Late

[Dragonhelm]

For example, I thought the idea of a Minotaur player was completely something I'd never be interested. However, after reading through the PHB3, I though of a character concept for a Minotaur Monk that I've since become interested in trying.

It's kind of weird though. A few years ago, I would have never considered such a character. I think that 4E (and its DMGs in particular) have really helped me become a lot more open-minded about different styles of gaming and made me more flexible.

What's interesting is that, as a Dragonlance player, I've played minotaurs for years and don't consider them strange at all. It goes to show that one person's oddity can be common in just the right setting.

 

[Dragonhelm]

Oh come on...

I cannot be the only person who has grown sick and bored of playing one of the core sundry races (human/elf/dwarf/halfling/gnome) and wouldn't mind trying his/her hand at a more exotic race which offers a unique and memorable gaming experience? (by virtue of possessing powers or abilities which normal mundane races cannot otherwise access).

I haven't played a core race for the past 4 years. I was already a bit sick of them from playing BG/BG2/NWN/NWN2. The only race I played in DDO was the warforged, only because he brought something different to the table. So far, I have tried my hands at an assortment of monster PC classes (using the savage progression rules) such as the ghaele, astral deva, troll, even a gold dragon. Even when using LA+0 races, they tend to comprise of more esoteric choices such as dragonborn warforged.

Honestly, I cannot envision myself playing a core race ever again.

This is where I come from to some degree as well. Don't get me wrong, I like the old standards, but new races mean wonderful new role-playing opportunities. I'm the same way about classes as well.

Old standards are fine, but give me something new to explore.

Now, what this might mean is that WotC needs to put out more fluff for the new races to showcase how they fit in the world of Dungeons & Dragons.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

D&D has ALWAYS been a 'kitchen sink' kind of fantasy. Sure, in the Way Olde Days that meant Humans, Dwarves, and Elves pretty much, but bizarre and monstrous PCs have been commonplace for decades now.

Really, its perfectly cool to want to design a fairly cohesive and thematic setting with a restricted number of races, but its hard for me to see how that should be a restriction that should exist in the core game materials. Its up to each group to decide what elements to incorporate in their particular play. If you don't like the fantastical menagerie party effect then pick several races to be common (or even one for that matter) and maybe a few others that may be unusual or unique and just don't use the rest, or reserve them for some later phase of the game where they fit in better.

The designers just put out what they believe to be material that will be popular and useful to the greatest possible segment of their customer base. Really at this point if they didn't have things like Wilden and Shardmind what WOULD they have? I'm sure there are other possibilities but they would be equally obscure.

Honestly so far I haven't seen any races introduced in a PHB that I can't think of a setting for. Any of them could be used as-is or slightly adapted and be quite thematic in the right context.

Wilden for instance could be a perfectly good race to use as some kind of primal race of plant creatures or guardians of the forest. I can see them being a race of beings that humans and demi-humans would find strange but could deal with and that could be adventurers. Heck I don't think it would be that hard to design a setting where they are a major element and a common race. It would be quite different from your average neo-Tolkienesque setting, but it could be quite fun.

I could easily create a setting where pretty much any of the other official races fit right in. Not all of those concepts are ones I'm particularly interested in personally but I could see any of them being cool settings. If you can create a good backstory and other elements for a race then I think you'll find that there will be players who will pick it up and try it.

 

[Rechan]

D&D has ALWAYS been a 'kitchen sink' kind of fantasy. Sure, in the Way Olde Days that meant Humans, Dwarves, and Elves pretty much, but bizarre and monstrous PCs have been commonplace for decades now.

Really, its perfectly cool to want to design a fairly cohesive and thematic setting with a restricted number of races, but its hard for me to see how that should be a restriction that should exist in the core game materials. Its up to each group to decide what elements to incorporate in their particular play. If you don't like the fantastical menagerie party effect then pick several races to be common (or even one for that matter) and maybe a few others that may be unusual or unique and just don't use the rest, or reserve them for some later phase of the game where they fit in better.

You know, if you replace "Race" with "Style" or "Source Material", you have a pretty solid statement about D&D ever since the beginning.

I mean, you have "Tolkien Heroic Low Magic Fantasy" with "FR High Fantasy" along side "Howardian/Grey Mouser S&S", next to "Lovecraftian Horror", David Carradine's "Kung Fu" inspired Monk, and Steven King's "Fire Starter" inspired psionics.

Go even further, and you have "Grueling Hell of Psionics and Insectmen" Dark Sun, and "Plane Hopping Tieflings and Ubermagic" in Planescape.

D&D has been a muddled "catch all" mess to emulate many kinds of fantasy. So making it cohesive and saying "Damnit the source material should be cohesive" is pretty counter to how things have been.

It would be quite different from your average neo-Tolkienesque setting

Well honestly, if you look at LotR, the themes of "Nature vs. Industrial" and how Industrial/Tech was the Bad Guy, Wilden make sense in a Middle Earth goodguy way. I mean, Wilden are not a far stretch from Ents.

 

[Felon]

The politically correct concept of any race can be any alignment and PCs have to talk to monsters before engaging them is less of D&D and more of real world philosophy. It would be nice to have a human or two in the group and fewer monsters, and the good old days of "Orcs are enemies" was actually a lot of fun.

Both as a DM and a player I tend to advocate a creedo known as "The Law of the Dungeon". If you're running around some monster-infested ruins and see a bunch of guys prowling around armed and ready to go at it, then they're fair game. Orcs, human, whatever. I'm not saying I discourage parley, but rather I discourage the notion that you're supposed to give the benefit of the doubt to dangerous-looking people in what's the equivalent of a DMZ. If you don't want to be gacked by any stranger you meet, don't go into the dungeon.

 

[Gargoyle]

I have always been in favor of a human centric campaign because it makes the non-humans seem more special, and it's easier for me at least to relate to the characters and their wonder at seeing strange things.

However, if everyone wanted to play a non-human, and I ended up with a weird zoo-crew, I'd be ok with it. Players sometimes want to play something as different as possible from their real world self, and I'm all about letting them play what they want.

 

[Gargoyle]

What's interesting is that, as a Dragonlance player, I've played minotaurs for years and don't consider them strange at all. It goes to show that one person's oddity can be common in just the right setting.

I immediately thought of Kaz when I saw that minotaurs were going to be a player race in PHB3. I've always liked the idea of an entire minotaur civilization in a huge labyrinth of a city. The premise of the bestial minotaurs being the ones who serve Baphomet fits well, allowing me to keep them as simple monsters too.

 

[renau1g]

Now, what this might mean is that WotC needs to put out more fluff for the new races to showcase how they fit in the world of Dungeons & Dragons.

Maybe that's why Dragonborn and Tieflings are getting those Races books.

 

[Dragonhelm]

I immediately thought of Kaz when I saw that minotaurs were going to be a player race in PHB3. I've always liked the idea of an entire minotaur civilization in a huge labyrinth of a city. The premise of the bestial minotaurs being the ones who serve Baphomet fits well, allowing me to keep them as simple monsters too.

The bestial minotaurs exist in Dragonlance as well. They're a small offshoot known as Thoradorian minotaurs. So it's the best of both worlds.

See Races of Ansalon for more info.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

Yeah, it sounds like part of the OP's reaction is that the races are new and unfamiliar, given that was his/her admitted reaction to the new races in the PH1. Not that I'm suggesting that one's like/dislike of new material (including the OP's) is necessarily linked to it be "new", but such is a factor and I'm greatful (and admiring) of the OP recognising as much.

Personally, I think that whether a person thinks a race is cool or not depends the personal connection they have to the race as a whole - either to its art, its background, its mechanics, or their past experience with similar races. So, persons who have enjoyed minotaurs or rockmen in the past will likely enjoy the new variations, unless they find that the new versions contain diviations from what they most liked about the old ones (whether that be in mechanics, background, art, or whatever).

Myself, I don't think the new races are any weaker than the old ones. Personally, before 3e, for the core races I didn't really like halflings (too hobbity), in 3/3.5e I didn't like gnomes (felt they were just trickster halflings), half-orcs (didn't like mechanics) or half-elfs.

In 4e, I like many of the races, but still don't like half-elves or gnomes, and don't like tieflings as is (the background/mechanics dissonance of being cha/int rather than int/con or cha/con is part of it). Half-orcs I like (due to their improved mechanics) now, as I do halflings (with their more interesting background). As for the PH3 races, I quite like both the wilden (though I hate the art - I would have them be more like living twig/stick creatures), shardminds (for which I like the art, but dislike the name and background). Minotaur's who I have never been interested, have been given a very interesting background - still not likely to play one, but that's The Gith, on the otherhand, do absolutely nothing for me - but that may have something to do with my utter ambivalence about monks and psionics, which seem to be a large part of the Gith's flavour.

So, I can't say the PH3 races are weaker than any of the others. Indeed, if there is anything I like about them, its their "stat boost, then choose one of two stat boosts" mechanic - I actually prefer the more constrained design style of having 2 stat boosts, with only humans being special.

That said, they aren't the races I would have added - personally, I would love to have kobolds and kenku made PC races. That, or some more (and interesting - not just halfling/gnome knock offs) small races. Or some races with the shadow key word (but, again, interesting ones - not just more "emo" ones like the Shadar Kai).