D&D (2024) All about Ardlings

[Yaarel]

Personally I would ban Humans entirely if I had my way, lorewise Humans in D&D aren't even part of Toril's local wildlife, they're an invasive species from a hellish plane of existence called Earth.

The proposed Players Handbook has all the rules, with the human to illustrate the rules. It is mostly setting neutral, except magic exists and is medievalesque.

So it is easy to write a specific setting with various races without ever mentioning the human race at all.

 

[Corinnguard]

Yup. The book that has all the rules, only stats humans.

At the same time, the Forgotten Realms setting guide is also one of the core books and goes into more detail about a specific setting, including which races the setting has.

Not every setting will have halflings. Not every setting will have ardlings. Not every setting will have dragonborns. Not every setting will have elves.

The Forgotten Realms setting has many races. So this setting specifically needs to go into detail about which races, their features, and the various cultures, relating to them. There will be elf culture backgrounds in Forgotten Realms that wont exist in Eberron. And so on.

The existence of any race depends 100% on the setting.

The only default that one can assume is that most settings will have the human race. Even if a setting lacks the human race, the rulebook needs to have a human so that players can relate to the human, and get a sense of how the rules work. The human race is the measuring unit by which to measure and compare other races.

Which human stats do you propose the players should be using? The core rulebook for 5e provides two sets of stats for humans- the bland version which I have heard no one really wants to play, or the variant human who starts the game with a 1st level bonus feat?

In other words, a world-neutral PHB that provides the right amount of crunch and fluff for the players and the DM. Something like the PHB back in 3.0/3.5 and PF1. And then each setting gets their own campaign setting book that covers the stuff not found in the first PHB. 3.0/3.5 did that too.

Metric humans? No such thing. We're all different. Each and every one of us.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I ask because that was the lineup for the 2e PHB - 3e had the same lineup, but adding the half-orc.

Which is your favorite?

Dragonborn, personally. Tieflings are a close second.

Statistically, dragonborn are more popular than dwarves, halflings, gnomes, and half-orcs.

 

[Corinnguard]

I ask because that was the lineup for the 2e PHB - 3e had the same lineup, but adding the half-orc.

Which is your favorite option?

Dragonborn and Genasi

 

[ersatzphil]

Dragonborn, personally. Tieflings are a close second.

Statistically, dragonborn are more popular than dwarves, halflings, gnomes, and half-orcs.

Fair - I didn't mean to imply that they shouldn't be in the game, but rather whether they should be in the PHB vs. an expansion or setting-specific book.
I'm personally a fan of tieflings, but have mixed feelings about them being in the PHB as a 'standard' race, rather than a planar-game-specific one.

 

[Yaarel]

Which human stats do you propose the players should be using? The core rulebook for 5e provides two sets of stats for humans- the bland version which I have heard no one really wants to play, or the variant human who starts the game with a 1st level bonus feat?

In other words, a world-neutral PHB that provides the right amount of crunch and fluff for the players and the DM. Something like the PHB back in 3.0/3.5 and PF1. And then each setting gets their own campaign setting book that covers the stuff not found in the first PHB. 3.0/3.5 did that too.

Metric humans? No such thing. We're all different. Each and every one of us.

The human is an example of how to use abilities, skills, backgrounds, feats, and when taking classes, how to use weapons and spells.

The human race is excellent to illustrate how D&D rules work.

 

[Corinnguard]

The human is an example of how to use abilities, skills, backgrounds, feats, and when taking classes, how to use weapons and spells.

The human race is excellent to illustrate how D&D rules work.

How to use abilities, skills, backgrounds, feats, class features, combat and magic have been written up before without the need to use a particular race as an example.

 

[Yaarel]

How to use abilities, skills, backgrounds, feats, class features, combat and magic have been written up before without the need to use a particular race as an example.

We players are human in reallife. So using the human race as an example of how to use these gaming mechanics is grounding. So the Players Handbook as a rulebook for how to play D&D benefits from featuring the human race.

But a setting guide has a different purpose.

 

[Scars Unseen]

What would you say to one that just had humans, elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, and half-elves?

I would throw in orcs as well; they may not have been a race as long as the ones you've mentioned, but they've been a core part of D&D at least as long. Then I'd put out a race book - call it "Beings of Myth and Legend" or something - and that's where I'd lay out races like dragonborn, the planar races, etc.

I'd do it like that for two reasons. First, while I'm not on board with Yaarel's idea of a bare bones stripped down core book, I do think that a "classic D&D" approach to the core is a good idea. The difference is that I think that the core should be less bare bones, and more like a good soup stock: flavorful, but not too exotic. It shouldn't just be "hey, here are the rules of D&D," but "hey, this is D&D." Now, arguably dragonborn at least, and possibly tieflings as well have become part of what younger players consider the core of the D&D races, but that brings me to my second reason.

Races like dragonborn, and definitely the planar races are varied enough in possible origin and configuration that I feel they really need more room than the PHB can afford to do them justice. If I had my way, there would be a revisiting of the "Complete" series concept from 2E, giving every major race their own book filled with potential lore, adventure ideas and player options. Alas, it's not an idea that would sell well enough for today's WotC. But I still think that at least having a race specific book could give enough real estate in the book for the more exotic races to get the kind of options and imagination fuel they need. I'd give multiple potential origins for groups to consider, each with at least as much text as the race would get as a whole if it were in the PHB. I'd take the barebones approach the playtest is suggesting will be the status quo and give multiple advancement paths for players that want their character's race to play a bigger role mechanically. In the case of races with varying potential appearances like the planetouched, I'd dedicate a page to ideas for players to use to imagine how their character would look, potentially with tables for those that want a little help in that department.

Basically, I'd give let the PHB be D&D comfort food, and then put out a recipe book for those that want more.

 

[ersatzphil]

Basically, I'd give let the PHB be D&D comfort food, and then put out a recipe book for those that want more.

I think we’re in agreement - make the PHB the baseline; let expansions and settings get weird with it.