I don't like Dragonborn: Please come and bring friends.

[Glade Riven]

Personally? Here's what I'd like to see: Original 1e core races get a standard full page write-up with their stats, followed by a slew of other races with a shorter write-up (say, half a page).

Of course, we'll see with the playtest launch on just how much race effects character creation. If it's been trimmed down slightly, a whole bunch of races could fit on one big table, set up the way 3.5 described feats.

 

[underfoot007ct]

The dragonborn of 4E are not the dragonborn of 3E, hence, their story starts in 4E.

So this was decided by whom? You? Hum, I so disagree.

They were refluffed. Two edition history, IMHO!

 

[Hussar]

Meh, who bloody cares how many editions something has been in? What difference does it make? Half-orcs have only been in two editions, so we should not include them? Gnomes have not been in every edition, so, they should go too? Good grief.

I really, REALLY don't get the problem here. There seems to be two issues:

1. Space requirements. Ok, fair enough. If each race gets a full page write up, then, yeah, that could be an issue. But, who needs that much of a write-up? Most of it is filler that gets read once and then completely ignored. Basic D&D manages to present four races in a page. I cannot remember how much space races took up in 1e. There's no reason to stick to the 1 race=1 page thing. And certainly no reason to go with the two page spread from 4e. That's just padding page count. Heck, with a bit of editing and some smaller art, you could fit twice as many races in the 4e books with the same page count. IOW, this is not an issue.

2. Anything in the PHB will be asked for by players. Look, you're big people. You're the DM. You're wearing the big daddy pants. If you need something to be removed from the PHB to give you the authority to remove something from your campaign, you have MUCH larger issues at play here. Grow a pair and tell your players that you are not allowing race X in your campaign world. It really does work. I've been banning elves from my games for nigh on twenty years.

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it shouldn't be included. Dragonborn are a player race, no different than ANY other player race. The DM can fold, spindle, and/or maul anything he/she so desires to create a campaign. The authority of being the DM is not derived from what appears between the covers of the PLAYER'S handbook.

 

[pemerton]

I really, REALLY don't get the problem here.

<snip>

Look, you're big people. You're the DM. You're wearing the big daddy pants. If you need something to be removed from the PHB to give you the authority to remove something from your campaign, you have MUCH larger issues at play here.

I couldn't agree more with the first sentence.

As for the other bit, I prefer a more collaborative approach between players and GM. But the net result is the same.

And looking at it another way: if its a convention game, or a one-off, where players bring pre-built PCs using whatever they find in the books, who cares?

And if it's an ongoing campaign, work it out like reasonable human beings according to whatever distribution of authority your group favours!

 

[Hussar]

I couldn't agree more with the first sentence.

As for the other bit, I prefer a more collaborative approach between players and GM. But the net result is the same.

And looking at it another way: if its a convention game, or a one-off, where players bring pre-built PCs using whatever they find in the books, who cares?

And if it's an ongoing campaign, work it out like reasonable human beings according to whatever distribution of authority your group favours!

Oh, me too. I'm much more in favour of collaborative campaign building. I think it creates better games. However, I also do think that for someone to piss and moan that including something in the game somehow means that WOTC is now holding their game hostage to their players is the result of wishy washy DM's who need far too much hand holding from on high.

See, if it was the other way, I'd totally understand. You want something in the game and it's not there? Totally understand the angst. I am just frankly bewildered by the idea that there is something wrong with more options.

 

[CleverNickName]

I am just frankly bewildered by the idea that there is something wrong with more options.

I think I can see both sides of the issue.

When I was a teenager, I asked my parents if I could paint the walls in my room. They said sure, but they wanted to approve the paint colors. So we agreed on three different colors for the room. They had assumed the colors were for the baseboards, the walls, and the ceiling...but instead, I just splattered the walls and ceiling with all three colors randomly. When my parents saw it, they were furious and made me repaint it immediately. I thought the random splattered paint gave the room character, that it made the room look interesting. They only saw noise and graffiti.

I think the same could be said about gaming preferences. Some people see lots of exciting options. Others see a lot of graffiti.

Arguments ensue, because both are technically correct depending on your expectation.

 

[Oni]

Personally? Here's what I'd like to see: Original 1e core races get a standard full page write-up with their stats, followed by a slew of other races with a shorter write-up (say, half a page).

Bolding mine.

Is this really necessary, do you really need full page write-ups for the most generic of fantasy races, races that many people that have never even seen a die with more or less than six sides could give you a basic overview of because they've been in tons of movies and books and video games?

Leave the world building to individual tables, you really don't need more than a small blurb to give a little basic shape, something to hang an idea on, or inspire one. Leave it for the setting books to lay out that kind of detail.

 

[Li Shenron]

Wouldn't it make a lot more people happy if they created a chapter in the Monster Manual titled "Playable Monster Races" or something, and included a few dozen races that the DM can include if desired?

In 3.0 there was such thing, in the DMG. It was largely ignored.

 

[Hautamaki]

I for one like the idea of a very broad and inclusive PH1. I recall when 4e came out and our group decided to try to make the switch, mid campaign, from 3.5 to 4e. Right from the get-go it became clear that 4e PH1 could not recreate our 3.5 characters, not even close (I was a dual katana ninja, and our party also had a druid and a multiclass sorc/fighter) so we had to create whole new characters and basically completely retcon our campaign, which was a somewhat disheartening way to get started on the new system.

Now subsequent books released years later would allow us to basically recreate our old characters, sure. But by then we were already long since turned off 4e. Instead what the 4e ph1 did was create a bunch of new things like Dragonborn, and the Warlord class, and so on, that frankly we had absolutely no use for in our already existing campaign.

I think that the only way 5e succeeds is if DMs and players alike find it very easy to adapt their existing campaigns to the new ruleset. If the new ruleset does not allow them to easily do what they were already having fun doing (and do it better mind you) a lot of people are not going to bother with it. Why should they?

 

[OmegaMan950]

I recall when 4e came out and our group decided to try to make the switch, mid campaign, from 3.5 to 4e. Right from the get-go it became clear that 4e PH1 could not recreate our 3.5 characters, not even close (I was a dual katana ninja, and our party also had a druid and a multiclass sorc/fighter) so we had to create whole new characters and basically completely retcon our campaign, which was a somewhat disheartening way to get started on the new system.

Now subsequent books released years later would allow us to basically recreate our old characters, sure. But by then we were already long since turned off 4e. Instead what the 4e ph1 did was create a bunch of new things like Dragonborn, and the Warlord class, and so on, that frankly we had absolutely no use for in our already existing campaign.

There's no way the 3 4E core books on release could contain the info to match 2 PHBs, 7 official splat books, 3 3.5 monstrous manuals, the "Races of ..." books, and whatever else campaign material was used for peoples 3.5E games. That's impossible