D&D 5E I don't like Dragonborn: Please stay away from D&D Next.

[AngryMojo]

The PHB should include Core as well as expansion modules for popular races and whatnot that aren't hyper-specific to a setting like Warforged, Kender, and Tinker-gnomes are.

This argument I can accept, even if I disagree with it. I'm still far more inclined to make all races optional rather than imply anything isn't setting-specific.

 

[nnms]

A cool thing to include would be a section about how to reflavour all the races into variations on humans.

I think I wouldn't mind running a game where all the PCs have to be humans without losing the mechanical variety of having multiple species. Then I'd probably make every single non-human thing the unrelenting enemy of humanity.

 

[Incenjucar]

A cool thing to include would be a section about how to reflavour all the races into variations on humans.

I think I wouldn't mind running a game where all the PCs have to be humans without losing the mechanical variety of having multiple species. Then I'd probably make every single non-human thing the unrelenting enemy of humanity.

It's actually pretty easy to do, too.

Race just becomes a kind of theme. A human dragonborn, for example, has some minor magical training or inborn talent and a few rage issues, even if they later become a fighter.

 

[Sunseeker]

No, not really. That should be a sign that you might be missing something in the communication ...

The point we seem to be talking past one another one is what is core to the Dungeons and Dragons brand identity?

If you start botching / conflicting with established continuities and franchise settings like Forgotten Realms, City of Greyhawk, Ebberon, Castle Ravenloft, and Dragonlance to the point where you need to do massive redaction instead of just overlaying an additive module I think something's wrong with your definition of "core."

You can try in vain to misuse the word "bloat" (To cause to swell up or inflate from its previous size) and try to adopt it against Humans, Elves, and Dwarves but it's a losing battle. Try using the established continuity of Krynn, Oerth, or the Realms without Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Halfings, Half-Elves or even Gnomes and Half-Orcs without causing massive continuity nightmares. Good luck with that.

Those races can't be easily written off as "bloat" because A.) they've been playable for over two decades in the core and b.) core brand identity and existing IP works the company still wants to generate revenues are inextricably linked to them.

Dragonborn? Goliaths? Planescape, Krynn, and Ebberon-originated races? Not so much.

- Marty Lund

Is it too much to ask for a setting-neutral PHB? Ya know one that focuses on good rules, ease of character building, explaining how things work and so on and so forth? Let the Adventure Books, the Setting Books, the modules and race-specific books fill in the fluff. Give each race some generic racial features, elves are good in forests, dwarves are good in mountains, halflings in grasslands, a few basic racial traits(honorable, hearty, good-natured, cruel, etc..). Then let the setting books fill in the very fluffy details.

There are SO many worlds out there that I think picking a single one of them to be "core" for the base 3 books would be as bad as if Wizards said they were just going to go back and remake 3rd edition. I personally think that any core setting developed, if there NEEDS to be one at all, should be a new and original world, instead of a retconned old one or one remade for the current rules.

But really, the "core 4" books should be as setting neutral as possible. If Demogorgons can exist in any world, why can't elves and dragonborn? And logically tieflings are just demonspawn, so their existence is literally a given in ANY world that has ever had demons in it(same applies to aasimir). Why is it a given that elves and dwarves MUST exist in every setting, while it's not a given that Dragonborn do? Certainly there must be somewhere that Dragonborn are the norm, and humans are nearly unheard of!

Really the rationale for which races exist where is quite thin.

 

[Oni]

My hope is they will include a lot of races (and classes) with very succinct, short write-ups. Races especially don't need a lot of fluff laid into their descriptions, since it's something that should change a fair bit from setting to setting. There should be just enough there to get you started, spur a few ideas, and hang a concept on. IMHO.

 

[Lanefan]

Being old doesn't make something take up less space.

If there is bloat, I argue that it comes from redundancy. When you have something that is only a slight variation of another thing instead of a dramatically new thing, I would call that bloat.

A given thing might be "old" to us what have seen it before, but remember it's all new to someone to whom 5e is their first exposure to D&D - or RPGs at all, for that matter. So yes, even though we've seen D&D Dwarves written up 5 or 6 times already we're gonna see them again...and that's a good thing.

Lanefan

 

[FireLance]

Which, really, only serves to prove the point that the point of bloat is not defined by your and only your preferences and wants.

Do many people really need this pointed out to them?

Sadly, yes.

Far too many people confuse subjective preference with objective quality.

 

[Incenjucar]

A given thing might be "old" to us what have seen it before, but remember it's all new to someone to whom 5e is their first exposure to D&D - or RPGs at all, for that matter. So yes, even though we've seen D&D Dwarves written up 5 or 6 times already we're gonna see them again...and that's a good thing.

Lanefan

Absolutely. Old is new. New is also new. They're equally new to new people, so they're equally valuable to new people if they're equally good. But do you really need an individual dragonborn race for each breath weapon any more or less than need a dwarf for each elevation?

 

[Dragonhelm]

Now I loved the Draconians from Dragonlance but I didn't like them as a playable race.

Personally, I think they make a great race. I've played three different noble draconians, and I love them.

Personally, I like dragonborn, but they seem a bit watered down compared to draconians. Still, they can be fun.

If this edition truly is the best of D&D, then dragonborn should be included, IMO.

 

[Hussar]

DL has Kenders. We need to include kender in the PHB to affirm our traditional roots!!

Never mind that DL doesn't have orcs, so, we don't need half orcs at all.