D&D Race You Hate the Most

[Sunseeker]

The further away from Human we drift, the more blurred the line becomes between PCs and Monsters. So maybe 5E desn't need a ton of races. Maybe 5E just needs the four iconic races and an updated Savage Species?

Assuming we consider those four to be "iconic". Personally I find halflings to be little more than short humans. Their cultural differences are even minimal than compared to the Hippy Human and the Fat Human.

That, and I'm not paying for a PHB with only 4 races. That's a fine number for a Starter Box, but that's entirely unacceptable in a $30-$40 book w/300ish pages.

 

[Incenjucar]

The further away from Human we drift, the more blurred the line becomes between PCs and Monsters. So maybe 5E desn't need a ton of races. Maybe 5E just needs the four iconic races and an updated Savage Species?

Clerics exist because someone was playing a vampire. Lacking monstrous PC options is not D&D. Heck, sorcerers are usually descended from monsters as part of their class assumptions.

 

[CleverNickName]

That, and I'm not paying for a PHB with only 4 races. That's a fine number for a Starter Box, but that's entirely unacceptable in a $30-$40 book w/300ish pages.

One of the best D&D rule books ever written was $30/300ish pages, and had only 4 races in it. Okay, the races were also classes, but still...

The hobby has yet to produce a better, more comprehensive and more cohesive rulebook than the Rules Cyclopedia. I hope 5E at least comes close.

 

[Sunseeker]

One of the best D&D rule books ever written was $30/300ish pages, and had only 4 races in it. Okay, the races were also classes, but still...

The hobby has yet to produce a better, more comprehensive and more cohesive rulebook than the Rules Cyclopedia. I hope 5E at least comes close.

In your opinion. And there's nothing wrong with your opinion, and that's the point: there's a wide berth of opinion on this subject.

Also: it's original MSRP was $24.99 USD, and it is only 210 pages.

 

[Incenjucar]

One of the best D&D rule books ever written was $30/300ish pages, and had only 4 races in it. Okay, the races were also classes, but still...

I could never agree that the above bolded leads to the latter bolded. My fantasy is bigger than that. It has been bigger than that since before I even heard of D&D.

The hobby has yet to produce a better, more comprehensive and more cohesive rulebook than the Rules Cyclopedia. I hope 5E at least comes close.

Your version of the game, while totally worthy and perfectly adequate for your needs, would make people think I had narcolepsy - and this is no exaggeration, I pass out when bored. I very likely would be physically incapable of playing that game that you feel is "more comprehensive" because of how SMALL it is.

 

[CleverNickName]

Also: it's original MSRP was $24.99 USD, and it is only 210 pages.

Even more efficient.

I think there should be a large number of possibilities in 5E, and not just for PC races. There should be an infinite amount, actually. But there has to be a happy balance between "everything but the kitchen sink" and "only the four iconics." And this is how I would like to see that balance:

They should only put 2d4+2 races in the Core Rules, put the rest of them into supplemental books, and (most importantly) give us balanced rules for creating our own playable races for any campaign. Everybody wins.

 

[CleverNickName]

Your version of the game, while totally worthy and perfectly adequate for your needs, would make people think I had narcolepsy - and this is no exaggeration, I pass out when bored. I very likely would be physically incapable of playing that game that you feel is "more comprehensive" because of how SMALL it is.

Woah...wait. It's not "my version of the game," it is a published set of rules from TS&R. It is one of the most popular and successful versions of the game. I would love to take credit for it, but it is by no means "mine."

I've never gotten any complaints about any of my games being boring, regardless of the edition I happen to be running. Even if I did, I'm pretty sure that the "boring" statement would come from my story and narrative, not from the number of racial options available to players in the game...which is what this thread is about.

I maintain that 5E does not "need" more than a handful of races in the core rules, and that any other races that DMs desire could be sold in supplemental books and/or created by the DMs themselves. This is merely my opinion, true, but I doubt that it is a unique one.

 

[Sunseeker]

Even more efficient.

I'm more a flavor over efficiency kinda guy.

I think there should be a large number of possibilities in 5E, and not just for PC races. There should be an infinite amount, actually. But there has to be a happy balance between "everything but the kitchen sink" and "only the four iconics." And this is how I would like to see that balance:

They should only put 2d4+2 races in the Core Rules, put the rest of them into supplemental books, and (most importantly) give us balanced rules for creating our own playable races for any campaign. Everybody wins.

In the MOST idea world, I'd like to see the ability to custom-build or at least customize races to the point where you wouldn't need a unique entry for your half-dwarf-half-sun-elf as the core element regarding races. You'd just mix and match a few racial abilities, adjust the bonuses and penalties and add your own flavor.

I think a bare minimum of 5 is the absolute least I can stomach in a single book, though I'd prefer 6, if I can wish for the moon, 10. I think they oughta cut down a lot of the world-specific fluff that was present in 4e books regarding race and that'd free up a lot of page-room.

Of course if Wizards wants to put less in....they can always lower the price!

 

[Incenjucar]

Woah...wait. It's not "my version of the game," it is a published set of rules from TS&R. It is one of the most popular and successful versions of the game. I would love to take credit for it, but it is by no means "mine."

It's yours in the sense that it's the game you prefer.

It was popular and successful at the same time bellbottoms were popular and successful. That doesn't indicate its ability to succeed outside of that time period. That doesn't mean that some people can't still rock bellbottoms, of course.

I've never gotten any complaints about any of my games being boring, regardless of the edition I happen to be running. Even if I did, I'm pretty sure that the "boring" statement would come from my story and narrative, not from the number of racial options available to players in the game...which is what this thread is about.

If the system doesn't influence whether or not a game is fun, this thread has no purpose. Options are a big deal for the people who want those options, and they're often meaningless to people who do not want those options. Options allow for more people to find the option of their choice.

I maintain that 5E does not "need" more than a handful of races in the core rules, and that any other races that DMs desire could be sold in supplemental books and/or created by the DMs themselves. This is merely my opinion, true, but I doubt that it is a unique one.

5E needs to make money. The people who want certain options have money. If it fails to provide those options, they will fail to provide that money.

 

[Minigiant]

The further away from Human we drift, the more blurred the line becomes between PCs and Monsters. So maybe 5E desn't need a ton of races. Maybe 5E just needs the four iconic races and an updated Savage Species?

The closer we move races to humans, the less reason we need races at all.

And the ways the 4 races were before 4E, they lacked a reason to be races and were more cultures. Elf vs dwarf. Blond human vs Brunette human. Skinny human vs fat human.

And how long will I have to wait for the Savage Species book?