Eladrins, Tieflings, Dragonborn Too Far Outside Standard Fantasy?

[Voss]

I've always wondered why "classical" mythological creatures like Centaurs, Satyrs, Harpies, Merfolk, Pixies etc are so far from mainstream in D&D...

Do you mean as critters or as PCs? As PCs they tend to be a little too complex. Either ability wise, or, with centaurs and merfolk, you have to make radical changes just to accomodate them.

 

[Tuft]

Do you mean as critters or as PCs? As PCs they tend to be a little too complex. Either ability wise, or, with centaurs and merfolk, you have to make radical changes just to accomodate them.

As PCs and as NPC. Simply as inhabitants of the world in general.

 

[Choranzanus]

I've always wondered why "classical" mythological creatures like Centaurs, Satyrs, Harpies, Merfolk, Pixies etc are so far from mainstream in D&D...

They are not rendered very well in Monster Manuals.

 

[WalterKovacs]

Or human/tiefling for that matter, considering the origin of the tiefling race.

They have stated that, because of the curse that created the tiefling, any child of a tiefling and a human would be "fully" tiefling. Basically, the "curse" is a dominant gene. They can have children, as they are 'technically' humans ... but any progeny is a tiefling through and through, no dilution.

 

[Tervin]

They have stated that, because of the curse that created the tiefling, any child of a tiefling and a human would be "fully" tiefling. Basically, the "curse" is a dominant gene. They can have children, as they are 'technically' humans ... but any progeny is a tiefling through and through, no dilution.

Thank you. I had missed that. Works very well for my purposes.

 

[Ginnel]

More races great, having to say no to players never easy,

Possibly an easier way of saying no to players though is asking why the player is fixated on that race, is it the back story for the race, is it the general mood and looks, is it the stats and abilities? you then work with the player to come to a compromise either by helping the player understand they can play that type of character with another race or that a similar backstory is appropriate for race X in your campaign or if its the stats and abilities see if you can incorprate them into a different race which does exist in your campaign.

If you come up with something great if you don't, oh well I'm sure your player will appreciate your time if they don't maybe a new player is needed, I would advocate this same method with classes as well.

 

[Wormwood]

Possibly an easier way of saying no to players though is asking why the player is fixated on that race, is it the back story for the race, is it the general mood and looks, is it the stats and abilities?

Conversely, the DM may consider examining his own unwillingness to allow such a race into the game.

 

[hong]

My unwillingness to allow halflings is completely NORMAL and JUSTIFIED.

 

[Piratecat]

My unwillingness to allow halflings is completely NORMAL and JUSTIFIED.

I think if I come visit you, I want to play a halfling wizard.

 

[Ingolf]

Of all the misconceptions surrounding the release of 4e, I think the "AD&D conventions are the same as literary fantasy conventions" is the most insidiously annoying.

D&D has never been representative of anything but itself. Gygax and company threw in a lot of Poul Anderson, and lot of Jack Vance, some Robert E Howard, H P Lovecraft and Fritz Lieber, a bit of Lord Dunsany and Tolkein and a health dose of Greek, Norse, Mesoamerican and Asian mythology into a big pot, lit a fire under it and stirred it up. The brew they served up from that pot was not "classic fantasy" or classic anything else but classic D&D.

D&D is our game, we can add to, remove from or otherwise tweak the "classic D&D conventions" anyway we like, and obviously if we can, so can WotC. If you don't like the changes they made, that's fine, but it's just not a valid criticism to complain abut the lack of tieflings or dragonborn in fantasy literature as a reason for WotC to exclude them from D&D