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

[am181d]

This "wing it" philosophy is probably fine for PC races, but it's not good for monsters.

We don't need a rigid monster structure like in 3e, but we do need a reliable method to gauge the CR of your results (the XP value is less important). Because we don't have the luxury of just "testing" it against the PCs.

I test things against my PCs all the time.

 

[Jester David]

What does it matter whether the three "sub-races" are presented as races or sub-races? Who cares? The 4e lore, including the sundering of the elves, is classic D&D seen through the prism of the Dawn War and the Feywild. I have a drow PC in my 4e game, whose goal for the whole campaign has been to kill Lolth and undo the sundering of the elves. The player of this PC has never played D&D prior to 4e, but has not had any trouble understanding the interrelationship of the three varieties of elf.

What does it matter?
Well, it doesn't really for the drow. Not really. And honestly it wouldn't have mattered if they had presented a race of elves with two subraces or a race of wood elves and a race of high elves. That's all semantics.
The problem is solely that they decided to remove the race/subrace of grey/high/silvanesti/sithican/sun elves and replace them fae from another dimension that can teleport a hundred times a day and are the source of all other elves. They needed the smallest of small tweaks to "fix" the problem and instead redesigned it from the ground up.

There's so many things wrong with that. The flashy racial power, the retconning, the recycling of an existing name, the mandating of the feywild. And while it arguably "fixed" the problem of differentiating between Nerath's high and wood elves it just created more problems in other worlds, most notably the sweeping hand waving necessitated by the Forgotten Realms. But other worlds would have been just as bad: Silvanesti in Dragonlance and Sithican elves in Ravenloft were both grey elves but very much not faeires tied to another plane, and teleporting was not a fitting racial power. There were frequent discussions about what to do with eladrin in those worlds, and how to handle wizard elves. So eladrin did not make it easy to update 4e in those worlds, nor did it solve the wizard/ranger elf split (and arguably made things worse). Of course, just using elves was unsatisfying as the race was unsuited for being a wizard (pre-Essentials).
If eladrin didn't teleport but had some simple magical ability, then things would be less problematic, as the extradimensional fluff could be ignored and just the racial mechanics uses. Or if the eladrin power was subtler allowing it to be reflavoured as less overt magic. But they teleport every 5 minutes... that's huge. That just doesn't work with existing lore or the thousands of novels. (If all sun elves are eladrin and can teleport there are probably dozens of instances in the Forgotten Realms novels where being able to teleport would have been handy.)

The eladrin were simply a bad fix for the problem. It was a fix that made more work than leaving things alone.

Now, again, this does not make the race itself bad; in a new world they work just fine. It just makes them a poor substitution for high elves. And saying the eladrin fix was poorly executed is not edition warring. The fix would have been equally bad in any edition. I like 3e but I can criticize the execution of 3e elves as well and burying of the wizard elf variant in the DMG was a mistake.
This is simply a critique of the purpose and execution of eladrins as a concept.

 

[steeldragons]

So what do we expect as for PHB equivalent race guidelines?

For example we have as races:
3 +1s and stuff races
+2, +1, and stuff races
2 +2s and weaker stuff races

Do you think the DMG will warn against +3 and stuff races?
Or no +s but very big stuff races? Do you think well get anything of the sort.

Because goblins are a major race in my home game. And their only defining ability score is Dexterity. I could never commit to a secondary score for long as each one pulls goblins too far And 5e doesn't either in the MM. But 5e in the PHB and DMG suggest secondary scores for goblins and hobgoblins. At least bugbears are easy.

Well, if viewed through the prism that PCs are the cream of the proverbial crop and "not your average joes", I could easily see goblins getting a ump to Con. They thrive in areas and environments that other races consider "filth", in swamps and dark woods, in urban setting's gutters and sewers. Dealing with stuff that would easily make other races ill or infected or worse is just lunch for a goblin. Disease and poisons are Con. saves. Also fits for making the lil' buggers easy to rout but a pain to kill. There ya go.

For a Goblin PC race, just off the top of my head, I'd probably go with something like this...which I may just end up using, myself, as I have goblins numerous enough and some [barely] civilized and tolerated in large multi-racial settlements.

Goblin
Abilities: +1 to Dex. +1 to Con.
Age: whatever you like
Size: Small. You range from 3.5-4.5 feet. While often matching a dwarf for height, their generally scrawny limbs and wiry frame do not warrant them being considered medium.
Speed: walking speed 30'.
Darkvision: 60'
Sunlight Sensitivity: as the drow.
Naturally Stealthy: as the halfling ability + roll Stealth with advantage in dim light or darkness.
Goblin Wile: You have the wicked cunning of your species and can use it to good advantage. You have advantage on all Sleight of Hand [Dex] rolls. Level times per day you can take one of the following as a bonus action: Dash; Disengage; or an Extra Attack with a small melee weapon (dagger, short sword, hand axe) already in hand.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The problem is solely that they decided to remove the race/subrace of grey/high/silvanesti/sithican/sun elves and replace them fae from another dimension that can teleport a hundred times a day and are the source of all other elves.

This twigs to one of the lessons I hope 5e has truly learned (and it seems that they have, in general): It's not the publisher's place to tell us what's fun and then have us do it and have fun. Rather, it is the publisher's place to supply fodder for what we think is fun.

Lots of people think 4e eladrin are fun, so it makes sense to include them. They might've even been a lot of fun in 4e as an option. But as a replacement, they didn't fare so well. It is not the publisher's place to tell us that eladrin are more fun than the old D&D high elves so here's eladrin and you don't need high elves anymore (and if you really want 'em, there's no Fun Police, but no way we're going to give 'em to you). It is more their place to say, "this view of elves might be a lot of fun!"

Examples of that were written all over a lot of (especially early) 4e: let us tell you what is fun, what you need to have fun, what is the most fun, what D&D is really about. Early 5e has a LOT in the opposite camp: do what you want, make a ruling and keep going, here's some ideas, the game isn't a fragile little snowflake that can't take some weirdness, do as thou wilt, whatever feels right to you. They're explicit about it now.

Which is part of why I'm really looking forward to the DMG perhaps the most out of any of the three 5e initial releases. If there's anything that exemplifies the freer-wheeling "here's a thing, have fun with it" style of 5e, it'll be in the options and expansions and other tweaks the DM can bring to the system. It's the best place to present the "do as thou wilt" philosophy, to show that we've moved on from 4e's more...paternalistic...style.

This blurb shows that in spades. The game wants you to make new subraces and races. It's easy to do. Here's some advice. Make the game your own. We won't tell you how to have fun.

 

[Wrathamon]

If you felt insulted, I think that says more about you than about the D&D designers. And I'm not trying to be insulting in turn, but this common attitude among gamers has gotten me all riled up over the past few days here on ENWorld.

agree

When you get insulted and take things personally when a game changes something, it's a You problem.

People use loaded words because it works ... they are doing it to incite a reaction.

Hey guess what other people may not like what you like, and really like what you dont. Don't try to make them have to defend what they like or be bullied into not liking something because you talked bad about it and tried to get everyone to jump on your "we dont like this" bandwagon.

Save that sort of behavior for things that really matter, like women's rights.

it's a shame that they aren't using my favorite X, or how dare they mandate that we use Y, or Z is stupid why would they think anyone would like that?

This attitude has grown worse and worse over the last decade+ Maybe its a a Y2K thing.

If you dislike something fine, feel free to express it but be aware that you could be insulting other people who may like it, and have every reason to like it and shouldn't be bullied into not liking it.

to people who like something keep liking it, if something you like changed, change it to how you like it. Be proactive and positive.

Guess what people liked 3e so much Pathfinder was made. I personally don't like Pathfinder, but I wouldn't tell someone that Pathfinder is horrible and stupid or a Shame that it exists or people play it. Just like I still like my favorite football team, even know they are horrible now, so don't tell me I shouldn't be a fan because you think they suck.

 

[Derren]

And this is bad why?

Because in that case you do not need this chapter or it can be covered in a side bar. It looks like its just there to claim that you have one.
"Look, we have an entire chapter about creating races! It doesn't tell you anything besides Do what you want, but its 4 pages long!"

Also, some of the questions provided are a bit metagamey (preferred classes and backgrounds).

 

[Zhaleskra]

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.

Nit pick: Eladrin, as playable without DM fiat were from 4e. They've been around as "monsters" since at least 2e.

 

[Jester David]

Nit pick: Eladrin, as playable without DM fiat were from 4e. They've been around as "monsters" since at least 2e.

Monstrous eladrin are very different being angelic beings rather than fey. It's just a recycled name.

 

[Aldarc]

Monstrous eladrin are very different being angelic beings rather than fey. It's just a recycled name.

Yeah, it's about as far-fetched as changing kobolds from dog-like goblinoids to draconic.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

@Sword of Spirit,
As long as the DMG hasn't changed much since the last time I saw it, you should be pleasantly surprised.
#InsideInfo

I hope so! I'm pretty optimistic in general about the DMG; I'm just outspoken in championing what I feel needs championed

I think folks might be reading a bit too much into the existence of eladrin here. It's an example of how to do a subrace, nothing more. There is plenty of indication in 5e that they aren't interested in One True Story, and there's no reason that can't apply to these eladrin as well -- if they do a Feywild story, maybe these eladrin will make an appearance. If they do a Planescape story, maybe it'll be a different sort of eladrin. Personally, I've never had a real problem with both kinds of eladrin existing side-by-side (different courts, different abilities, distantly related cousins, etc.), but there's no indication here that folks who are playing PS or who otherwise don't like the blink elves need to embrace the 4e-style eladrin.

Yeah, even though I'm pro old-school eladrin, and "I'm not sure I have any use for these 4e eladrin" I have no objection to putting them in the DMG as an option for those who do. I actually thinks it probably a really good idea, especially along with the 4e cosmology option that it sounds like the DMG will include. It allows WotC to basically say that we can use either the Great Wheel or the World Axis in 5e, with official rules support.

Yeah, it's about as far-fetched as changing kobolds from dog-like goblinoids to draconic.

It's actually a lot bigger a deal than that.

In 2e (Planescape)/3e there were a type of creatures called "exemplars." There was at least one primary one for each alignment.

LG: Archons (not to be confused with the 4e creature of the same name)
NG: Guardinals
CG: Eladrin
LN: Modrons
*TN: Rilmani
CN: Slaadi
LE: Devils (baatezu being the main category of them)
NE: Yugoloths
CE: Demons (tanar'ri being the main category of them)

*"True Neutral" = balance nazis

Exemplars were afterlife beings--they were formed of the souls of dead people of that alignment. (Some souls could have other fates, but this was one of the big ones that many souls went to.) They were your final reward or punishment. They were supernatural in the strongest sense--they were in no way natural "races."

Switching that to just another breed of elf is an extreme change.

Anyway, I don't care what they call 2e/3e eladrin in 5e, and I don't care if 4e eladrin get sole claim to the name. All I care about is that all of 2e/3e exemplars (including eladrin) exist in 5e, more or less in their classic presentation.

[Edited because I generally click "post" before I proofread]