D&D 5E Kender are a core race?

[steeldragons]

I disagree.

Of course you do.

These are all D&D creatures, and belong in D&D.

No arguments here.

there is no such thing as setting-exclusive.

Um...yes, there is. There is for every gods loving race anywhere. That you don't see it is one more indication of how you are comPLETEly out of touch with D&D. Kender and sailor minotaurs and tinker gnomes all belong to Dragonlance/Krynn settting. Warforged and shifters belong in Eberron. Drow belong in FR because FR says so...and has Drizzt as the focal PC...

If it's a good idea for your games, you crib it. If it's not, it's not hurting you by being there.

I...I don't know what "you crib it" means...

And since no one is making you play a kender, or use them at your table, it's not hurting you to let someone else play them.

WRONG! Troll alert. Having Kender in the core PHB even called out as a "Dragonlance specific" race is an aberration to the "defaullt" of Dungeons & Dragons.

Really, the attempts at pointless gatekeeping all over this thread are a little disheartening to me. Look, people are going to play this game in ways you don't approve of. Someone is going to have kender and drow casting spells from the Book of Erotic Fantasy on the gods to kill them. It's going to happen. Someone might have a lot of fun doing that. Why should you care?

I do not...do you???

Great, your hatred of other peoples' fun is all-consuming,

WHOAH! That is comPLETEly out of line...ESPECIALLY for someone who is suppose to be a "moderator." I do not want to report you, but I will...rein it in...

that sounds totally constructive and not all a waste of your time and energy.

What??

I think DMs in this position need to ask themselves if their hatred of a particular character option outweighs their love of the game. If so, please help me understand.

This...makes no kind of sense.

....let me take a step back for a sec.

Might be a good idea.

This doesn't sound to me like hatred of the kender per se. It sounds more like a hatred of a certain kind of jerk player who uses kender (or Chaotic Neutral or paladins or whatever) as an excuse to be a jerk to the rest of the people at the table. So lets call a club a club and not blame the game element for the behavior of some jerk players. Yes, a player who constantly interrupts the game by causing trouble in the game world is kind of a problem,

You mean like a "kender" ???

but that's a problem independent of a kender PC race. If so, lets talk about those players, and some strategies for dealing with them, because kender or not, people will have to deal with players like this.

I have nothing to say about this...because, it means nothing.

 

[Nellisir]

Oooo...quote attack!

No arguments here.

And yet you argue.

Um...yes, there is. There is for every gods loving race anywhere. That you don't see it is one more indication of how you are comPLETEly out of touch with D&D. Kender and sailor minotaurs and tinker gnomes all belong to Dragonlance/Krynn settting. Warforged and shifters belong in Eberron. Drow belong in FR because FR says so...and has Drizzt as the focal PC...

So the GDQ series of modules...not Greyhawk? Tieflings belong in Planescape, by your logic. Dragonborn in Dark Sun. Because, please, let's take something interesting and lock it away. That's a brilliant idea. Not.

I...I don't know what "you crib it" means...

To copy an idea. (I originally wrote "to steal", but that's not really correct. "Cribbing" doesn't usually have the connotation of claiming ownership or origination of an idea that "stealing" has.)

WRONG! Troll alert. Having Kender in the core PHB even called out as a "Dragonlance specific" race is an aberration to the "defaullt" of Dungeons & Dragons.

Quick, let Gary Gygax know! He put "Greyhawk specific" races in Unearthed Arcana! Like Valley Elves! And Grugach! And...what were those...oh, yeah. Drow.

I do not...do you???

I do. I will play that game SO HARD....

WHOAH! That is comPLETEly out of line...ESPECIALLY for someone who is suppose to be a "moderator." I do not want to report you, but I will...reign it in...

RanDOM CAps are OUT of LINE as well (actually, they're not, but it is not a lot of fun to read). As is MISusing "rein it in". (as in, the reins of a horse.) You've missed the point of what he said, though.

What??

Sarcasm.

This...makes no kind of sense.

Yes, it does, actually. And I agree with it. What kind of DM would rather destroy a campaign (and probably a group) just because of a character's race? Not a good one.

Might be a good idea.

"Pledge the truth of Heaven and the faith of thy kingdom thereof." "I pledge it thee, gladly." "I crave of thee then, that thou obtain for me Olwen, the daughter of Yspaddaden Penkawr; and this boon I likewise seek at the hands of thy warriors. I seek it from Kai, and Bedwyr, and Greidawl Galldonyd 223a, and Gwythyr the son of Greidawl 223b, and Greid the son of Eri, and Kynddelig Kyvarwydd, and Tathal Twyll Goleu, and Maelwys the son of Baeddan, and Crychwr the son of Nes, and Cubert the son of Daere, and Percos the son of Poch, and Lluber Beuthach, and Corvil Bervach, and Gwynn the son of Nudd 223c, and Edeyrn the son of Nudd 223d, and Gadwy the son of Geraint 223e, and Prince Fflewddur Fflam 223f, and Ruawn Pebyr 223gthe son of Dorath, and Bradwen the son of Moren Mynawc, and Moren Mynawc himself, and Dalldav the son of Kimin Côv 223h, and the son of Alun Dyved, and the son of Saidi, and the son of Gwryon, and Uchtryd Ardywad Kad, and Kynwas Curvagyl, and Gwrhyr Gwarthegvras, and Isperyr Ewingath 223i, and Gallcoyt Govynynat, and Duach, and Grathach, and Nerthach, the sons of Gwawrddur Kyrvach (these men came forth from the confines of hell), and Kilydd Canhastyr, and Canastyr Kanllaw, and Cors Cant-Ewin, and Esgeir Gulhwch Govynkawn, and Drustwrn Hayarn, and Glewlwyd Gavaelvawr, and Lloch Llawwynnyawc 223j, and Aunwas Adeiniawc 223k, and Sinnoch the son of Seithved, and Gwennwynwyn the son of Naw 223l, and Bedyw the son of Seithved, and Gobrwy the son of Echel Vorddwyttwll, and Echel Vorddwyttwll 223m himself, and Mael the son of Roycol, and Dadweir Dallpenn 223n, and Garwyli the son of Gwythawc Gwyr, and Gwythawc Gwyr himself, and Gormant the son of Ricca, and Menw the son of Teirgwaedd 223o, and Digon the son of Alar, and Selyf the son of Smoit, and Gusg the son of Atheu, and Nerth the son of Kedarn, and Drudwas the son of Tryffin 223p, and Twrch the son of Perif, and Twrch the son of Annwas, and Iona king of France, and Sel the son of Selgi, and Teregud the son of Iaen, and Sulyen the son of Iaen, and Bradwen the son of Iaen, and Moren the son of Iaen, and Siawn the son of Iaen, and Cradawc the son of Iaen.
(have an excerpt of free literature.)

You mean like a "kender" ???

Or a drow. Because lets face it, if we're going to stereotype and pigeonhole characters, drow are chaotic evil murderous psychopaths and should be banned from the game entire.

I have nothing to say about this...because, it means nothing.

That's not even funny, actually.

 

[Dragonhelm]

And of course, no one remembers the Marak kender, who were the most terrifying halflings on the Prime Material until Dark Sun launched.

I remember them. I also remember the kendar. And, of course, there's the afflicted kender.

 

[Dragonhelm]

I don't think kender were commonly played. I suspect kender (and gully dwarves and gnomes) were often banned, perhaps by gentleman's agreement.

You might be surprised. In every Dragonlance game I have played in or DM'd, there has been a kender (or a half-kender!). I have also played a gully dwarf (tragic character, really). Tinker gnomes are more rare, but I think that's because there have not always been good rules for tinker gnomes in D&D. The 3.5 rules have been the best thus far, though I thought the 4e artificer worked well for them.

These three races get a bad reputation for being "silly". Because, you know, someone somewhere decided that silly was bad. I can attest, though, that each of these races are far more. I've seen tragic versions of each, for example. It's all in the way you play them.

It looks hard to have a PC like that in the group, I wonder how people managed to play Dragonlance. Or was it just more common to have no kender in the group?

From the point of view of someone unaware of the setting, I can say that from the description in the playtest packet I could not figure out what you just explained about kender. My perspective is of course "here's some optional race, should I add it to my homebrew/casual campaign of D&D?". Without knowing what you just explained, I would have actually just allowed someone to play a kender and told her/him not to worry about explaining where does all the stuff comes from, it just happens to have a chance to be in your pocket

As I mentioned above, kender were quite common. Thing is, we knew not to be jerks. Kender are far more than kleptomaniacs. They are the children of the world, approaching life with a child-like wonder. They have no fear, and life is an adventure. They were highly influential with the 3e halfling, who no longer resembled the hobbits of Middle-Earth.

What I have discovered is that the race isn't broken so much as it is the players. How many of you have played in a game where someone is playing a human rogue, and they rob everybody blind? Those same people are drawn to kender, focusing on handling and not making a well-rounded exemplar of the race.

One thing I would advise with kender is to let the DM roll for their handling. And make certain you have a variety of items. A kender may very well throw away an expensive item if a pretty purple stone catches their attention instead. A kender would rather have pink fuzzy bunny slippers than coin.

Kender are perfectly viable races to play. It is a shame that some bad players have given kender an undeserved bad reputation.

 

[1of3]

So, a group member pitches a campaign idea they'd like to run to the rest of the group, and the group says "sure, go for it". Wouldn't it be a good thing if the potential DM had a reasonably strong picture in their head of the basics of the campaign world the story will be set-in? In that case, if the player suggests a race and rationale for them being in the world, and the DM still can't see it, is saying no arrogant on the part of the DM or just part of job they volunteered for? (e.g. a Kitsune ninja in an Egyptian themed game, a Dwarf Cleric in a human only world with a specified pantheon, ... )

I just don't see the point. It's all just people with latex pieces on the face. If someone comes along to play that Kitsune ninja in an egyption themed game? - Oh, so you're an assassin in service Bastet? How cool is that.

But I usually wouldn't even go that far. That's only looks. Campaign concepts revolve on what there is to be done, not what the make-up artist is about to do. Is this the reclaiming of an old town? - Oh, nobody wants to be a dwarf. Well, then we are apperantly reclaiming the ancient home of intelligent sunflowers. Please tell me more about the facilities I might expect there.

I think my point is, Avatar is still Pocahontas. Even if everyone's blue.

 

[steeldragons]

And yet you argue.

That D&D races belong in D&D? No, I don't. KM and my impass, as is usually the case, is where I define things vs. where he does. Kender are a Dragonlance race. Dragonlance is a D&D setting. Hence, Kender are a D&D race. Yes. They belong in D&D. Yes. Dragonlance is in D&D, so Kender are in D&D. Dragonlance, however, is not default D&D and so nothing specifically Dragonlance belongs in the default.

Thanks for the "you crib it" definition.

RanDOM CAps are OUT of LINE as well (actually, they're not, but it is not a lot of fun to read). As is MISusing "rein it in". (as in, the reins of a horse.) You've missed the point of what he said, though.

1. If you look at them, they are not "random", they are where they are to denote emphasis...making pieces of words italics is a lot more obnoxious and not as effective, imho. I do not use random caps.
2. Rein has been edited. Thanks for catching that. Homonyms make me nuts too.
3. The "point" of what he said, as far as I can tell, was to claim I have a hatred for other people's fun. That is completely untrue and, as I said, out of line. So, no, I don't believe I missed his point.

Yes, it does, actually. And I agree with it. What kind of DM would rather destroy a campaign (and probably a group) just because of a character's race? Not a good one.

Telling a player "No. That race is not allowed." and/or "doesn't exist in this setting" is not going to destroy a campaign or group...and I think a DM that is incapable of saying "no" to their players is "not [the] good one."

 

[Nellisir]

Kender are a Dragonlance race. Dragonlance is a D&D setting. Hence, Kender are a D&D race. Yes. They belong in D&D. Yes. Dragonlance is in D&D, so Kender are in D&D. Dragonlance, however, is not default D&D and so nothing specifically Dragonlance belongs in the default.

Syllogistic fallacy. (I'd define it, but it's like porn.... Just look up syllogism, spec. illicit treatment of the major or minor term.)
You're* trying to transition from an emotional conclusion (I hate kender, therefore no one should play kender) to a logical one (kender are Dragonlance. Dragonlance is not default. Therefore kender are not default) but the logical argument you're trying to make is not universal (tieflings), fixed (subject to popular opinion), or even well defined (what is "default"?).

*"You" is intended to be general, not specific, as several people have advanced this argument, including the OP, who has done well in chumming us.

 

[DMZ2112]

Syllogistic fallacy.

Your logic is irrelevant, as it nearly always is in a forum discussion, as this is entirely a discussion of "emotional conclusions" and "popular opinion."

 

[DEFCON 1]

It all comes down to this:

It doesn't matter in the slightest what appears in the first set of PH/DMG/MM books, because a Dungeon Master controls the personal campaign he is going to run.

If he says "No warforged", then the campaign has no warfrged. Regardless if they get statted in the first 5E PH. That's the perk of being the Dungeon Master. You get to make these declarative statements because it's your campaign.

But what is always the ridiculous counter-argument that gets given to this? That a particular player on these boards doesn't want to have to be the bad guy and make these declarative statements... they'd rather that the books only include that which they want to use. That way anything a potential player says they want to play is a-okay with them.

But you know what is bass-ackwards about this theory? The very first time a second book comes out... those options are now going to be ones that potential players are going to ask to play. Which means the DM will have to tell them "Sorry... this campaign only uses stuff from the first Player's Handbook."

Which is EXACTLY the same sort of "declarative statement" they didn't want to make the first time. So they're okay with making those statements after book 2, but not after book 1? Nope. Sorry.

Thus... the counter-argument is ridiculous and should not be used to strike out potential information from the first set of books.

 

[Mistwell]

Provided they stick with the "Exotic Races, DM Permission" notation for races other than the core four, I don't care what they put in the PHB. They can include a monkey robot ninja dinosaur-riding pirate zombie PC race for all I care.