D&D 5E Humanoids, and playing monstrous races

[Kobold Stew]

There are problems with the low-level humanoids in the Bestiary. These problems have persisted through various testpacks, and should be fixed.

The focus in the changes is on making characters (balancing classes). My sense is that the designers haven’t spent much time on the bestiary at all. I’m focusing on the humanoids (orcs, kobolds, gnoll, goblinoids) because (a) these are the mainstay of low-level encounters, and (b) previous editions have had rules for making characters from these races. What do we see?

These races fall into three basic groups: 10xp (human commoner, kobold, goblin), 20xp (human warrior, hobgoblin, goblin boss; berserker is 30xp), and 40xp (bugbear, gnoll). Each group has roughly comparable power levels. The orc, at 70xp, is clearly a TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR, and should be 20 [edit: 30?].

(I expect the goblin boss should be at least 40xp, perhaps more, and will therefore be excluded in what follows.)

One way to measure class abilities is the value of starting attributes. PCs start with 27 “build points”. Where do others fall? (I’m taking no negatives for values less than 8, and factoring in +1 to all stats for humans, +1 to the two highest stats for the xp 20 and 40 races, +1 to one stat for the xp 10 races (just because there aren’t two stats high enough!).

This gives us (and again, it’s 27 for PCs):
10. Kobold 3, Commoner 6, Goblin 8.
20. Warrior 12, Hobgob 14, Orc 15
40. Gnoll 17, Bugbear 18.

Hit point totals also cluster: 10xp (2-4 hp), 20xp (11 hp), 40xp (13-18).

My point is, nothing we see here marks any of these races as unplayable at first level. In fact, statting them up for PCs seems pretty straightforward:

Orc
+1 Strength, +1 Constitution
darkvision 60’
languages: common, orc
(proficiency: light and medium armour)
(proficiency: greataxe and shortbow)

[edit: nothing done with Relentless ability]

Hobgoblin
+1 Strength, +1 Charisma
darkvision 60’
languages: common, goblin
*Steadfast: immune to fear if within 30’ of a friendly creature with this trait
(proficiency: all armour)
(proficiency: longspear and shortbow)

Note: Disciplined ignored (cf human warrior)
Note: Longspear! Not in equipment rules, but as spear with reach.

Bugbear
+1 Strength, +1 Dexterity
darkvision 60’
languages: common, goblin
Stealthy: +5 to all stealth checks
(proficiency: light armour and shield)
(proficiency: morningstar and javelin)

Gnoll
+1 Strength, +1 Dexterity
darkvision 60’
languages: common, gnoll
Blood Frenzy: hostile creature reaches 0hp within 10’, melee attack with disadvantage
(proficiency: light armour and shield)
(proficiency: battleaxe and longbow)

Goblin
+1 Dexterity
size: small
move 30’
darkvision 60’
languages: common, goblin
Stealthy: +5 to all stealth checks
Sneaky: may attempt to hide after move without using action
First Strike feat (~Bushwhacker trait)
(proficiency: light armour)
(proficiency: mace and shortbow)

Kobold
+1 Dexterity
size: small
move 30’
darkvision 60’
languages: common, draconic
Light sensitivity: disadvantage on all attacks in sunlight
(proficiency: dagger and sling)

Note: Pack Tactics ignored (cf. human commoner)

Comments:
* when a trait is shared by a human, it’s not included.
* even when weapon and armour proficiencies are included, none of the races is equal to dwarf or elf
* except for the kobold, all of these races have something that makes them unique and desirable to play.
* in fact, I think there’s room to beef them all up: give gnolls the level 10 ranger’s Feral Senses (or let them be available as a gnoll-only feat); or (to reflect the extra hit dice) give the bugbear and gnoll a Bonus feat: Toughness.
* SUGGESTED ADDITION to the kobold (is this enough to make them viable?):
Bonus feat: trap sense
Tricksy: claws function as thieves’ tools, which you use as if proficient.
(and there exists a feat to remove light sensitivity?)


Thoughts? None of these seem broken to me, or to offer edge cases for cunning players to exploit. What have I missed?

 

[Sunseeker]

I tend to agree that all near-human, humanoid and human-like "monsters" should be based on a core set of stats that are identical in power to PC races. Partially because we know people are going to want to play orcs, kobolds and so on at some point, and also because realistically speaking these creatures are not physically different from playable humanoid races to warrant significantly inhuman stats or powers, the majority of their ability will come from whatever class the race trains in.

 

[the Jester]

I tend to agree that all near-human, humanoid and human-like "monsters" should be based on a core set of stats that are identical in power to PC races.

What??

So you are saying that there should not be a race that is humanoid and yet distinctly better than pc races?

It's bad enough that Drow have been neutered over the editions to "pc level strength" instead of their original, terrifying, alien, clearly superior to surfacers while in their own domain nature. I don't want to see the same thing happen to other objectively better species- githyanki, bugbears, etc.

By the same token, kobolds have always been the wuss of D&D and I would very strongly prefer to keep them that way. I see no need for a kobold to be the equal of a human, elf or dwarf.

Partially because we know people are going to want to play orcs, kobolds and so on at some point,

Some people want to play dragons, elemental and flocks of magic seagulls. That doesn't convince me that dragons, elementals and flocks of magic seagulls need to have their stats written with pc dragons, elementals and flocks of magic seagulls in mind rather than as monsters, which is their primary reason to exist in the game... much like kobolds and goblins and the rest.

and also because realistically speaking these creatures are not physically different from playable humanoid races to warrant significantly inhuman stats or powers, the majority of their ability will come from whatever class the race trains in.

Big assumptions here.

Who says they are not physically different enough from the "pc races" to warrant significantly inhuman stats or powers? That may be true in your campaign, but in mine, kobolds are sufficiently different that if you want to play one, you do so knowing and willingly choosing to play a pc who is weaker than standard. By the same token, Drow and githyanki are sufficiently different and more powerful than standard that they are not a (typical) player option in my game.

Traditionally, a bugbear is a 3 HD monster. That alone makes it better than a standard human or other pc-race creature.

While I suspect we will see pc rules for these monsters in 5e, I hope with all my heart and soul that they don't 'infect' the monster stats for them. I have no desire to see them all made "pc appropriate" by powering them up or down. While they make fine pcs in campaigns that are into that, these things are, and have always been, primarily monsters, and I strongly feel that they should be treated that way.

 

[steeldragons]

I'm with Jester here. The MM humanoids should be monsters. Some are weaker than PCs and some are [hopefully] stronger/more challenging. I would see it kept (or rather, returned) that way.

To the OP, yes, it is easy to write up humanoids in a PC kind of way. That's good. Great, even, for homebrewing! But not, to me and my enjoyment of the game (unless I feel like taking the time and effort to do the homebrewing and/or permit monster race PCs), how they should be automatically be presented simply because they can be presented that way.

Shidaku is correct that ,sooner or later, someone is gonna want to play a monster race. That's pretty much a given. Put out a Monster races book/supplement...hell, make it a PDF download supplement or, by the time they're releasing, even just a Monster-to-PC conversion App. (I'll tm that right now so when someone makes it and makes a mint, I get a cut . But that fact, in and of itself, doesn't for me warrant making them that way out the gate when their primary function/purpose in the game is not to be PCs but to be adversaries...to be monsters...and thus, separate/different than, perhaps even "alien" to PCs in most regards.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Thanks for this.

Making comparisons with the races in other editions is inevitable, and (in my view -- this was my starting point) the humanoid races here are particularly undeveloped.

I've seen nothing challenging in any of the playtest packages for these races, and there are typos (such as the XP for orcs) that suggest the entries have barely been read.

None of these races is a threat: they are simply fodder, undeveloped and with little to nothing to distinguish them. If you want the races to be dramatically interesting and a legitimate, developed opponent, seeing what the core mechanics are is a necessary first step. Direct comparison, apples to apples: the alternative would have been to make monster entires for dwarves and elves and halflings. Either way shows how much more powerful the halfling is than a gnoll.

To the OP, yes, it is easy to write up humanoids in a PC kind of way. That's good. Great, even, for homebrewing! But not, to me and my enjoyment of the game (unless I feel like taking the time and effort to do the homebrewing and/or permit monster race PCs), how they should be automatically be presented simply because they can be presented that way.

Because we're at a point in the playtest where little thought has been given to these races, "home brewing" is all we can do. Unless you are suggesting that because this doesn't interest you, it should have no part in the core books at all?

There's no need for a supplement, or a pdf download or an app. This isn't rocket science, and (for these races at least), it would be no more than two pages at the back of the monster manual, all subject to DM approval of course.

Shidaku is correct that ,sooner or later, someone is gonna want to play a monster race. That's pretty much a given. ... But that fact, in and of itself, doesn't for me warrant making them that way out the gate when their primary function/purpose in the game is not to be PCs but to be adversaries...to be monsters...and thus, separate/different than, perhaps even "alien" to PCs in most regards.

I suspect sooner rather than later, and I think you'll find nothing in the OP that suggests that the primary function of monsters is anything other than what you describe.

So, if you are not interested in seeing what we've been given in terms of a PC race, turn the question around:

Are these humanoid races monstrous enough for you? Is there enough difference from a human warrior to let them qualify as "alien" enough? Nowhere close, for me. These races are anodyne.

Either beef them up into real threats with mechanics that don't translate to PC races, or present rules such as these that show how underpowered the monstrous races are.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Some people want to play dragons, elemental and flocks of magic seagulls. That doesn't convince me that dragons, elementals and flocks of magic seagulls need to have their stats written with pc dragons, elementals and flocks of magic seagulls in mind rather than as monsters, which is their primary reason to exist in the game... much like kobolds and goblins and the rest.

You know this is not what the thread is about. If you do not see a qualitative difference between a player wanting to play a dragon and a player wanting to play an orc, then there is no conversation to be had.

I see no need for a kobold to be the equal of a human, elf or dwarf. <snip>

Who says they are not physically different enough from the "pc races" to warrant significantly inhuman stats or powers? That may be true in your campaign, but in mine, kobolds are sufficiently different that if you want to play one, you do so knowing and willingly choosing to play a pc who is weaker than standard. By the same token, Drow and githyanki are sufficiently different and more powerful than standard that they are not a (typical) player option in my game.

Traditionally, a bugbear is a 3 HD monster. That alone makes it better than a standard human or other pc-race creature.

All this is fine -- in fact, I think we're on the exact same page.

Kobolds -- weaker than any other pc race. Check.
Drow and Githynaki real threats and not a PC race. Check.
Bugbear "a 3HD monster" -- well, it's 4 dice in the current pack (18 hit points), but fine -- they are beefy.

I think you mean a lot more though by the phrase "3HD monster". 3.x had the level-adjustment mechanic, and had humanoid levels to beef up creatures. That's not what I am advocating. And if the Bugbear were written in a way that made if feel like it was some bigger creature, with more raw bulk, then that too would take it out of the category of race I'm considering. But it isn't.

While I suspect we will see pc rules for these monsters in 5e, I hope with all my heart and soul that they don't 'infect' the monster stats for them. I have no desire to see them all made "pc appropriate" by powering them up or down. While they make fine pcs in campaigns that are into that, these things are, and have always been, primarily monsters, and I strongly feel that they should be treated that way.

Again, we're actually agreeing here. If the designers power-up these races so that they are incompatible with being played as a first-level PC, fine. That's a win. As they are, they have been powered-down (without this goal of making playable races in mind, evidently), so that all of the races being considered are underpowered compared to a level-1 PC.

In fact, I made only three suggestions for "powering up" the races:
-- making kobolds mildly tricksy
-- giving bugbears and gnolls a few hit points though the toughness feet
-- making some feats available to races that aren;t available universally.
All of these were kept separate from the actual descriptions. All of them were an attempt to make something distinctive about playing one of the races in question.

My claim is that none of these makes the races PC inappropriate. In fact, I'd claim none of them make the races equal to any other PC race we've been given. But they would be viable, if weaker.

I really don't think we're that far apart.

 

[Weather Report]

I would like a Savage Species type deal down the line.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I would like a Savage Species type deal down the line.

Agreed! And welcome to the boards!

 

[Howndawg]

I would like a Savage Species type deal down the line.

+1. Monsters can be fun.

 

[Sunseeker]

What??

So you are saying that there should not be a race that is humanoid and yet distinctly better than pc races?

Yes, because inevitably people will want to play that race, or WOTC will make that race playable, and that will either result in a neutered version of it, or horribly useless "level adjustments"

It's bad enough that Drow have been neutered over the editions to "pc level strength" instead of their original, terrifying, alien, clearly superior to surfacers while in their own domain nature. I don't want to see the same thing happen to other objectively better species- githyanki, bugbears, etc.

Then by counter, these races can never be playable. LA was a complete failure because there was no underlying mathematics determining who got what. That's why all humanoid races need to have a "core" race math that is in line with the PC races. Maybe your average Drow is just a minimum 5th level. Maybe your average gith is generally 8th level.

By the same token, kobolds have always been the wuss of D&D and I would very strongly prefer to keep them that way. I see no need for a kobold to be the equal of a human, elf or dwarf.

Other than that people have played them, no, which was my point.

Some people want to play dragons, elemental and flocks of magic seagulls. That doesn't convince me that dragons, elementals and flocks of magic seagulls need to have their stats written with pc dragons, elementals and flocks of magic seagulls in mind rather than as monsters, which is their primary reason to exist in the game... much like kobolds and goblins and the rest.

Dragons and elementals are clearly NOT humanoids, so your argument is completely irrelevant to my statements.

Big assumptions here.

Who says they are not physically different enough from the "pc races" to warrant significantly inhuman stats or powers? That may be true in your campaign, but in mine, kobolds are sufficiently different that if you want to play one, you do so knowing and willingly choosing to play a pc who is weaker than standard. By the same token, Drow and githyanki are sufficiently different and more powerful than standard that they are not a (typical) player option in my game.

Traditionally, a bugbear is a 3 HD monster. That alone makes it better than a standard human or other pc-race creature.

While I suspect we will see pc rules for these monsters in 5e, I hope with all my heart and soul that they don't 'infect' the monster stats for them. I have no desire to see them all made "pc appropriate" by powering them up or down. While they make fine pcs in campaigns that are into that, these things are, and have always been, primarily monsters, and I strongly feel that they should be treated that way.

I'm glad that you generally rewrite the rules for your games..but hey if we don't need rules, why are we even playing D&D!?