D&D 5E Should the "core" world be centered around the classic races?

[Manbearcat]

I'm mostly hoping for a race of people who are in the core instead of gnomes, who skip guards and get to the fun, who cast fighter spells, who shout hands back on while martial mind control force moving everyone everywhere so they can deliver continuous damage on a miss...all while spontaneously manifesting various Schrodinger content in the game (gorges et al)...but maybe only once per scene...just cause. That would be so good.

I think I might start a (few) thread(s) to advocate for that.

 

[Jester David]

With The Hobbit movies in theaters, I can see a renewed interest in playing a darf or elf. Or maybe a halfling.
There have been "new" fantasy races for as long as there's been fantasy but people keep returning to dwarves and elves, and for good reason. They're archetypal. Other races are nice as an option, but they shouldn't be assumed.

 

[Li Shenron]

I like their current presentation choice of races in the latest playtest packets: the classic 4 being presented as Common, and the rest basically as examples of races that may or may not be available for PCs, largely dependent on the DM's choice of fantasy setting.

If they stick with this presentation for the final product, it makes races beyond the classic 4 more acceptable.

The problem though... is that the word "Core" is a loaded term. And people have been using it to whine to high heaven about what appears in the books and what they do and don't want to see and use for years now. Using the word "Core" serves no function other than to make some people demand that things they want should appear in the first set of books, or things they don't want should not.

Now yes, the first three books absolutely give us the first group of rules we will use to play the game. I have no problem with that. But by calling those rules "Core"... it makes anything that appears after them "not Core"... and thus people will use those definitions as a bludgeon to try and get their way.

Screw "Core". Rules are rules, regardless of which book they come from. Stuff from Book 1 is no more important than stuff from Book 3, and the sooner we start accepting that, the better off we'll all be. And maybe then we'll stop hearing the ridiculous complaints that the dragonborn don't belong in Book 1 for example. That race has just as much right to be in Book 1 as any other.

Where really "Core" has some meaning, is in how all the subsequent published books assume it is available at the gaming table.

In 3e, non-setting-specific supplements would directly reference core material only. It's a safe choice to assume that every gaming group owns at least the PHB, DMG and MM (there are only rare cases of groups where the DM decides not to buy the DMG for instance) and therefore all the material in ONE supplement can directly reference "core" material or build upon it.

In 4e, I remember that "everything is core" was often quoted, but I don't know what it meant in practice. When this is meant that every book can reference every other books (and not only the 3 core), then the whole can become a mess. There will be people buying a book and discovering that they cannot use part of its material unless they also buy another book and so on. This might still work fairly well within a specific campaign setting, at least if the number of books for that setting is not too large.

OTOH, cross-referencing material can be a good thing for the game, but obviously only if you own both books. IMO this should rather be made available online.

 

[Sage Genesis]

In 4e, I remember that "everything is core" was often quoted, but I don't know what it meant in practice.

The "everything is core" thing is mostly an ENworld meme that refuses to die. The three PHBs, three Monster Manuals, and two DMGs are all listed as "core" on both the cover and on WotC's product page. Books like Martial Power or Adventurer's Vault are instead listed as Rules Supplements.

Everything is accessible through DDI tools, sure, but not everything is a core product. Never has been.

 

[Paraxis]

With as simple the rules are I would love for them to cut out most of the fluff from the players handbook and give us two or three PC races per page in the PHB. That way you could fit in a huge number of the playable races from 4e.


Player Handbooks
Deva
Dragonborn
Dwarf
Eladrin
Elf
Githzerai
Gnome
Goliath
Half-Elf
Half-Orc
Halfling
Human
Minotaur
Shardmind
Shifter
Tiefling
Wilden

Campaign Settings and Source Books
Bladling
Changeling
Drow
Genasi
Hamadryad
Kalashtar
Mul
Pixie
Revenant
Satyr
Shade
Thri-Kreen
Vryloka
Warforged

Dragon Magazine Articles
Hengeyokai
Kenku
Revenant

Fluff takes up to much room, that can be just looked up in the previous 40 years of books or is just a google search away. I want all the mechanical crunch rules, those don't change much from table to table buy many DM's change the fluff of everything to fit their world anyway.

 

[wedgeski]

I like their current presentation choice of races in the latest playtest packets: the classic 4 being presented as Common, and the rest basically as examples of races that may or may not be available for PCs, largely dependent on the DM's choice of fantasy setting.

Totally agree. The current playtest has got this exactly right, IMO. I like how it gives the PHB the opportunity to call out important, legacy D&D settings as well.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm mostly hoping for a race of people who are in the core instead of gnomes, who skip guards and get to the fun, who cast fighter spells, who shout hands back on while martial mind control force moving everyone everywhere so they can deliver continuous damage on a miss...all while spontaneously manifesting various Schrodinger content in the game (gorges et al)...but maybe only once per scene...just cause. That would be so good.

I think I might start a (few) thread(s) to advocate for that.

I think that's more of a background then a race, but otherwise, I approve.

 

[Manbearcat]

I think that's more of a background then a race, but otherwise, I approve.

Background...race...either is fine by me. Just make it happen. I want kewl, disassociated powerz so my entitled players are happy while we play our tactical board game and link it with freeform roleplay!

 

[TwoSix]

Background...race...either is fine by me. Just make it happen. I want kewl, disassociated powerz so my entitled players are happy while we play our tactical board game and link it with freeform roleplay!

<holds up the OD&D white books>

Back! Back into the Tomb of Horrors with you, with nothing but a 10-ft pole to aid you! Back, I say!

 

[pemerton]

Where really "Core" has some meaning, is in how all the subsequent published books assume it is available at the gaming table.

<snip>

In 4e, I remember that "everything is core" was often quoted, but I don't know what it meant in practice. When this is meant that every book can reference every other books (and not only the 3 core), then the whole can become a mess. There will be people buying a book and discovering that they cannot use part of its material unless they also buy another book and so on.

This is actually not a very big issue in 4e.

Primal Power and Psionic Power cannot be used with PHB2 and 3 respectively. Arcane Power and Divine Power reference classes found only in post-PHB 1 books, but have plenty of material useable with PHB 1 classes too.

Otherwise, most game elements are very self-contained and can be used as they stand. It is not a system that demands a lot of cross-referencing to make mecanical sense of things. And there is very little introduction of resolution subsystems. (The only two I can think of are the vehicle rules in Adventurer's Vault, and Martial Practices in one of the Martial Power books.)