Do We Really Need Half-Elves and Half-Orcs?

[billd91]

I have yet to see a strong enough justification by a DM for removing a PC race from play. “Because the setting....” doesn’t cut it.

In your opinion. Personally, I think it's one of the better reasons to remove a race from play. If the DM wants to work with a setting with only a limited set of races, that's fine as far as I'm concerned. We do that kind of thing reasonably frequently in the games I play in.

 

[FrogReaver]

The setting affects the DM and every player at the table. To claim every race available in the game must be present in all settings actually is a limitation on the number of interesting and unique settings. The decision to alwayss allow every race always impacts the whole table and limits the stories they can tell.

 

[WaterRabbit]

It seems that the half-breeds as variants of base type is a really good way to handle this while still allowing players the racial connection they want.

Speaking of Dark Sun, I thought the Mul was an interesting take on the half-breed option -- a sterile hybrid of a human and dwarf. It would also work well as a variant Dwarf.

One of the problems that D&D has that other systems don't is that it doesn't separate biology from culture. A biological dwarf raised by elves is going to be different than a biological dwarf raised by humans or what not.

The Background trait Outlander only goes so far to work with this.

I personally liked games in which you pick your race and then picked a cultural package for that race as well as a professional package. This allows for all sorts of player concepts but also allows the GM to keep the game grounded to the setting.

 

[delericho]

HOWEVER, I strongly disagree with you about campaigns. Many, if not most, DMs run a standard "kitchen sink" fantasy campaign setting. And that's fine (I have run many of those). But if the DM is running something else, then you should try and abide by those strictures. Because, well, respect is a two-way street.

This.

I run a lot of different campaigns, depending on what I feel like at the time. And some of those campaigns will give additional character options, while others will restrict the set (often both together). If you want to play in the campaign, you should abide by those restrictions - you can play that gnome next time.

And if a player absolutely has to play an option that has been banned, then the truth is that we'll probably both be happier if he sits this campaign out.

 

[BookBarbarian]

So I've been thinking more on this as I read the thread, and I realize at least part of my problem with half-elves in particular is how utterly boring their stats are in 5E. The only option they're given is "pick two skills." No subraces, no big choices.

Same with half-orcs, except they don't even get a skill pick. Honestly, I find humans in 5E boring as can be, too, though the variant human is much less so.

I think it was a mistake for WotC not to make subraces for every race except maybe human. I have the exact same problem with dragonborn, though they have a nod to subraces with picking their draconic ancestry. Again with tieflings, though that was (eventually) fixed with Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes. I'd have pondered making variant human the standard, if feats were an expected part of the game rather than an option.

Just because you desire more choice of subraces doesn't mean WotC should make every race have that option. 5e has always mixed complex options with less complex options.

The neat thing is you as a player are free to choose the option that interests you the most, unless the DM has limited those options from the game.

 

[Charlaquin]

I prefer to treat races as opt-in rather than opt-out. Instead of the default assumption being that all published races exist unless there’s a good reason for them not to, the assumption is that no races exist unless there’s a good reason for them to exist. That way of looking at it also gives more power to the players. When races are opt-out and a player wants to be an unconventional race, it’s “sorry, no half elves in my games.” When they’re opt-in, it opens up the door to “well elves and humans can’t normally have children in this world, so let’s think about how else your character might have come to have both human and elvish traits.”

 

[Dioltach]

Soooo .... how about kender?

 

[Umbran]

Soooo .... how about kender?

Kender have wisdom scores of 3, and are therefore not a playable PC race....

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Most people have at least some visceral reaction to things- some people love drow, some people hate 'em, for instance. Just like awesome cool people hate Paladins, while craven dunderhearded gadabouts like Paladins.

My gnome Paladin recently befriended an alicorn and gained the ability to summon her as his steed. Her horn cuts through the air like a haunting song, and her hooves are the drumbeat of impending war. Her fur is the deep red of the blood moon that shown upon the land on the day of her birth, a call to war, a sword against the Dark.

Paladins are metal.

and yes, for any Guy Gavriel Kay fans, I stole her from the Fionavar Tapestry.

If the DM is going to run a specialized campaign, and put that effort it, then why not play within those strictures? To use the Dark Sun example- you can always play a gnome, so why not, for this one DS campaign, play a DS race (for example)?

In other words, if you are lucky enough to have an involved DM (not just a "my way or the highway jerk DM") why shouldn't the players at least try to make it work in a campaign, instead of just creating a "whatever" generic character?

In the end, it's about communication- if the DM makes it clear what type of campaign it is going to be, then you can make your choice. But IMO, I can't imagine that I would want a player, who, after I put together a list of particular rules for that campaign, was all like, "Yeah, whatever man, I wanna play this instead of the countless other options."

The problem I've seen play out quite often in such campaigns is that the DM sees a player wanting to play a Gnome or a Divine character in Athas, and just assumes the player just doesn't care about playing a Dark Sun game, and gets frustrated. Sometimes, they're right. Other times, the player has a really cool idea that uses those elements to explore the world of Dark Sun in a way that has more satisfying impact than simple absence would. Who cares if there are no clerics? Like, in game, who actually cares? There haven't been for too long for even the long lived races to give a damn anymore, or remember anyone who lived close enough to when there were to still care. It's ancient history. No one thinks about it.

But when a soul is trapped in death, rallies the other souls of the dead around them, and is sent back by their collective wrath as a Revenant Avenger (or Vengeance Paladin in 5e), that is a story that uses a normally absent, and in-game totally alien, element of Athas to explore the absense of gods in a more engaging, impactful way.

Also gnomes are great, and if your player has ideas for a hidden culture of them in Athas, and history is just wrong about the weird and arbitrary extermination of Gnomes, the DM should be happy to have players who are that engaged. If they "just wanna", tell them no, sure.

Soooo .... how about kender?

Always an option at my table, even when phb hobbit's-with-shoes aren't.

 

[WaterRabbit]

Soooo .... how about kender?

Can't be any worse than Kenku as player characters -- a race whose only purpose is for players to annoy the DM.