D&D 5E DMG Excerpt: Creating a New Race

[Queer Venger]

Very nice preview. Excited to see variant races introduced, particularly the Eladrin & Aasimar, very nice touch to give DM's control of variant races and not in the PHB.

 

[ceiling90]

[MENTION=13085]Steel[/MENTION]boars

That's why that caveat of "compare to the other races in your world". Not necessarily the PHB, not necessarily something that would be everyone, but your home game. I like that.

So if you're concerned about the power creep, then you should always compare it to the PHB - if you don't care, then you know what, it's your home game and you can do whatever you dang well please. Create a race that can do 4th level spells at will, just remember that other options should be about just as crazy; or you know what don't - some races are purposely gimped cause you want it them to be.

I mean I'm pretty ecstatic about how it's done. I think it works well enough; there might be more crunch on the subsequent page also.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

I'm going to respectfully disagree.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with your disagreement with him disagreeing.

While I'm not a proponent of the school of thought that everything needs to be balanced to a perfect degree, having some basic guidelines for how strong a player race is supposed to be is clearly needed.

If you give your race the equivalent of a 4th level spell, usable at will, that could create a problem. Your race that can maintain concentration on two spells at once? Could be a problem. Tell us how to give flavorful abilities without making it the must-play race. A new rules system always has places where the law of unforeseen consequences can rear its head. Point out some common pitfalls to be aware of.

...but...but...but you just did "wing it". Just there, in digital print. You rightfully figured out or otherwise decided that giving a race the equivalent of a 4th level spell, usable at will, could create a problem. So don't do that. A race that can maintain two concentrations or two spells at once...don't do that either. See? In both of those, you "winged it" and you didn't even need a rule book to tell you.

Some of the guidelines are pretty obvious, albeit unwritten, but some people are bound to miss those unwritten guidelines. What harm in making them written?

There's a reason that 3.X included ECL, flawed though it was.

I do agree that there should be some mini-essay in the book that goes over the pitfalls of giving a race that "4th level, at will" ability. Mention should be made in such an essay of the "humanocentric" nature of D&D...that Humans are the baseline for, well, everything. In the 1st edition DMG, there was a small one-page essay on the "monsters as player characters", page 21 IIRC, that rang like thunder to my 11 year old brain when I read it. I never let any of my friends play a "goblin", "troll" or "hill giant"....no matter how much they cried about it.

As we haven't seen the whole picture on what the 5e DMG is suggesting, I'll leave the final judgment until the end of the month. But the feel of "here's some guidelines, but you basically have to make $#!t up for your own campaign" is definitely the correct way to go, IMHO of course.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[steeldragons]

This is also working under the assumption that "winging it" is what they're actually saying. Which, it really isn't, necessarily. They quite clearly say "Look at the other playable races. Base/compare its abilities on other playable races" (for this, I am kinda unclear why separate examples "creating a subrace" and "creating a race" were necessary...though I suppose a sub-race is more obvious/easier).

From this perspective, things like "at will 4th level spell effects" or "multi-concentration" is explicitly addressed.

It isn't a stretch to read that and presume that making "ogre" or "vampire" or "dragon" PCs is not at all intended by these rules. Possible, sure. But not "expected" as a default assumption of the game. It is presumed you can make races to add to your games that are similar in power and abilities to the existing playable races.

[EDIT] Kinda ninja'd by, and better put by, [MENTION=82284]ceiling90[/MENTION] [/edit]

 

[Jester David]

I am very pleased with what I see here...though am sickened by their continuing attempts to ram elfier-elves down out throats and make them seem kewl.

Eladrin were from 4e. So they found a way to include eladrin in the books without actually making them a core or even uncommon race. They're there for DMs and groups who want them, supported for campaign settings that included them, but non-standard.

 

[Zaukrie]

Great preview

 

[Boarstorm]

See? In both of those, you "winged it" and you didn't even need a rule book to tell you.

Which of course begs the question of why even include it in the book in the first place.

My opinion is just this: If you're going to cover a topic, cover it in depth. Sure, let us DM's keep control of the final outcome. But inform us about what we're getting ourselves into if we decide to allow something a little more strange than normal.

It isn't a stretch to read that and presume that making "ogre" <snip> PCs is not at all intended by these rules.

How about half-giant?

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I think it may have been a wise move to leave out the "crunchier" aspects of race creation. Any set of guidelines would have to be quite loose, and you wouldn't want DMs to be upset that they "followed the rules" but got an overpowered or underpowered race out of it.

 

[Jester David]

While I'm not a proponent of the school of thought that everything needs to be balanced to a perfect degree, having some basic guidelines for how strong a player race is supposed to be is clearly needed.

If you give your race the equivalent of a 4th level spell, usable at will, that could create a problem. Your race that can maintain concentration on two spells at once? Could be a problem. Tell us how to give flavorful abilities without making it the must-play race. A new rules system always has places where the law of unforeseen consequences can rear its head. Point out some common pitfalls to be aware of.

Some of the guidelines are pretty obvious, albeit unwritten, but some people are bound to miss those unwritten guidelines. What harm in making them written?

A list of all possible options would be massive. Look at the race builder section of Pathfinder's Advanced Race Guide for an example, and that's pretty darn broken in places.

The DMG should be filled with advice on how to house rule, which should help people get a handle on why rules exist. So that advice should be present. One just needs to read the rule advice in the DMG, read the PHB and look at the standard of the races, and compare balance.

But the problems with broken homebrew races typically come about when a DM doesn't read all the DMG rules or consider other races, when a DM just gets a burst of creativity and throws together a race, often more resembling a race from earlier editions with the names of some mechanics tweaked. In that instance, even if there was hard rules and guidelines, they likely would not be read.

 

[steeldragons]

Eladrin were from 4e. So they found a way to include eladrin in the books without actually making them a core or even uncommon race. They're there for DMs and groups who want them, supported for campaign settings that included them, but non-standard.

Yeah. I know. Best we could have hoped for I guess.

Y'know how some people get when kender are mentioned? Or warlords or "shout-healing"? Or "HP as Meat v. HP as stuff"? Any of those topics that seem to just elicit a visceral near blinding hatred for no apparent reason?

These eladrin are one of those for me. Pet peeve. Kneejerk Trigger. Whatever you want to call it.

They're something WotC took and changed for no reason other than to create IP for themselves and attempt to reinforce their Feywild concept. Gave them at will teleporting and OF COURSE people thought they were amazing in a mini's tactical game.
who else can just move where they are instantaneously? THEN had the gaul (or utter incompetence of not knowing) to equate them as a "High Elf", instead of "Grey Elves" who were defined as the "Faerie" of Elvin subraces since 1e. It was [just one of many] WotC changes for change's sake to try to make their look kewl and/or say they "made something up" for D&D all by themselves ...and I'm not falling for it.

It's irrational. I know that. But I dislike the eladrin-as-a-pc-race sooooo much. Can't help it.