D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[DND_Reborn]

We have races with Warrior aspects (Dwarf, Half Orc) and races with Wizard aspects (Elf)

There is no Traditional Old Schoool race with Thief (Goblin, Bugbear, Changeling) or Priest aspects (Aasimar).

Again, Lightfoot Halfling has Naturally Stealthy and Wood Elf has Mask of the Wild. Halflings and Elves both also gain DEX +2 and Lightfoots' CHA +1 is good for deception, persuasion, while Wood Elf's WIS +1 is good for Perception and Insight, not to mention Elves getting Perception by default (useful for detecting stuff, and all).

And of course, both are Traditional Old School races.

Do they have as many aspects towards Rogue as Goblins or Bugbears, certainly not.

But think about it:

Do you realize those races you want, which are most geared towards Rogue, have redundancy with the class itself?
Why would you want THAT!?!

At least Naturally Stealthy and Mask of the Wild complement the Rogue class instead of repeating features in part or in whole....

Bugbear for example, while having stealth allows you to take another proficiency, many Rogues have common backgrounds that also cover Stealth. So, you really might as well just make this as "Any skill" due to substitution. Surprise Attack is worthless once the Rogue is level 3.

For goblin, Nimble Escape is worthless at level 2 Rogue. As a Rogue you might as well throw it away.

Honestly, it is the same beef many players have with those "warrior races" getting weapon (and maybe armor) proficiencies. If you actually take a warrior class, those are basically worthless.

So, again, why would you even want races that mimic features provided by classes??? Those races don't make the classes better if you take them, it is actually redundant.

 

[Minigiant]

Do you realize those races you want, which are most geared towards Rogue, have redundancy with the class itself?
Why would you want THAT!?!

The same reason you play a High Elf Wizard or Half Orc Fighter.
To have a more roguish rogue or more clericy cleric.

or the The same reason you play a High Elf Righter or Half Orc Wizard.
To have a more roguish cleric or more clericy rogue.

At least Naturally Stealthy and Mask of the Wild complement the Rogue class instead of repeating features in part or in whole....

Bugbear for example, while having stealth allows you to take another proficiency, many Rogues have common backgrounds that also cover Stealth. So, you really might as well just make this as "Any skill" due to substitution. Surprise Attack is worthless once the Rogue is level 3.

For goblin, Nimble Escape is worthless at level 2 Rogue. As a Rogue you might as well throw it away.

Honestly, it is the same beef many players have with those "warrior races" getting weapon (and maybe armor) proficiencies. If you actually take a warrior class, those are basically worthless.

So, again, why would you even want races that mimic features provided by classes??? Those races don't make the classes better if you take them, it is actually redundant.

It's not my fault that typically when D&D designers design races and classes they themselves don't want to play, they design something faulty.

A Goblin Rogue is supposed to be an excellent choice as goblins are nutrally sneaky stabby thieves in the base fluff or lore.

 

[Oofta]

The same reason you play a High Elf Wizard or Half Orc Fighter.
To have a more roguish rogue or more clericy cleric.

or the The same reason you play a High Elf Righter or Half Orc Wizard.
To have a more roguish cleric or more clericy rogue.



It's not my fault that typically when D&D designers design races and classes they themselves don't want to play, they design something faulty.

A Goblin Rogue is supposed to be an excellent choice as goblins are nutrally sneaky stabby thieves in the base fluff or lore.

Good to know that you feel entitled to trash the developers of the most popular version of D&D ever made because you personally don't like a choice. Pray tell, how is it that you are so enlightened as to the motivation of people you've never met?

 

[Minigiant]

Good to know that you feel entitled to trash the developers of the most popular version of D&D ever made because you personally don't like a choice. Pray tell, how is it that you are so enlightened as to the motivation of people you've never met?

Trashing people is a form of endearment here in Brooklyn. I wont do that to any member here because I am a civil person. My brothers however are hurtful mean jerks and would be booted from this conversation long ago.

But it's true. And not for just 5e. D&D designers of multiple editions had biases. And their biases showed in design via the effort placedin the classes and races they liked or didn't care for.

Just because something works or was successful doesn't mean it is perfect or near perfect.

Trust me I know. I'm a New York Giants fan. That team runs of luck and being just good enough. Wona SB by being hot, lucky, and above average with a good QB and great defense. Not we are garbage and have no luck.

The Old School Race line-up works. But objectively it is only average. Slightly above average if you add dragonborn and tielfling. It's, as the kids say, Mid. And now it's old and runs on nostalgia. That's why non-D&D fantasy games don't even attempt to copy it anymore.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That one's simple: if I'm the DM and I happen to think a "popular" idea* among the greater community is terrible then the last thing I'm going to do is foster that idea's continuance within my own game.

* - an example for me would be Tieflings and Dragonborn as PC-playable species.

Me too other than I'd say that what you consider a terrible idea is in fact an excellent one. And to protect the wider community I'm going to push back against popular ideas in the community that are terrible. Ideas like the following one you present:

I don't consider "the GM does all the work" to be a problem; rather, I consider it a problem when GMs (and, in some cases, game systems) try to pawn off that work onto the players It's not their job.

The GM's job is to have authority at the table and to run the NPCs. Anything and everything else is open to the group and the game; this isn't a case where there is only one way to do it. And different methods work better with different games and different groups.

My take is simple. Given the number of options available when DMs take all the worldbuilding and refuse to let others contribute that is on them. It is not a model that is good for most groups and actively stunts the development of many roleplayers and especially stunts the possibility of other players developing into DMs.

The normal example used for chutzpah is someone who murders both their parents and then pleads for leniency on the grounds they are an orphan. To me it takes almost (although not quite) as much chutzpah to hog all the creative input of large sections of the game then complain that the DM does all the work.

You can run "your" game your way. And it probably works better for you than for most because you are a geographer by training. But I would advise that most GMs do not follow your pattern. Giving them extra work like this isn't good for them, and it isn't good for the players because it leaves them less engaged and involved, and the world less believable because it is too consistent. And "There is a dungeon there" is something that ranks very low on the sense of wonder scale compared to how the whole thing works.

 

[Neonchameleon]

As a thought exercise, let's look at the alternative and suppose that a player's character is a racial one-off and nobody is like them - what does that imply for the setting or their interactions with other people? Maybe the differences are subtle and wouldn't have an impact. But if you want something really different looking (or smelling/sounding/whatever), shouldn't that be notable and affect how people interact with the character? And does that get old after a while?

Not really - how you look makes an initial impression, how you act makes for longer ones. If nobody is like them then most of what it means is that they will grow a rep very fast for both good and ill. Bob The Only Minotaur will be better known than Fred the Barbarian because Bob is the only minotaur anyone is ever likely to meet. It's not the complete oddballs that are the case here, it's the rare and hostile cases; the tieflings, the drow, the orcs, and half-orcs of this world where there's going to be significant issues.

If you tie the character to an in-game race that is reasonably well known, at least then you have some justification for people not batting an eye at them.

If people aren't batting an eye at your average 5th level or so PC then it's an odd situation as far as I can tell. Especially given how much gold they are carrying and how armed to the teeth they are. There are PCs that can remain below the radar in D&D but those are the exceptions not the rule.

 

[Cadence]

If people aren't batting an eye at your average 5th level or so PC then it's an odd situation as far as I can tell. Especially given how much gold they are carrying and how armed to the teeth they are. There are PCs that can remain below the radar in D&D but those are the exceptions not the rule.

Is a 5th level character much of anything in Waterdeep? (They certainly are in Hommlet, say).

 

[Umbran]

I think it's the opposite.

5e is built like a traditional but heroic setting but marketed to everyone. So there is little sense of compromise and consideration as the 2 built in toggles and the added on toggles fight for dominance in the community.

You misattribute the fight as being between toggles, when it is between people.

The fact of the matter is that the D&D engine is reasonably good for a lot of things, less reasonable but workable for some more things, and not all that great for still other things. That's the nature of rulesets, honestly. We'd be better off if folks just allowed the toggles to exist as they are, and let folks use them, or not.

However, as has been seen time and again over the history of gaming, there's always a chunk of gamers (often several different chunks, honestly) who claim ownership of the soul of the game, and who try to eject anyone playing in a different matter into an Out Group. This is between people, the toggles are merely the standards they fight under.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You misattribute the fight as being between toggles, when it is between people.

The fact of the matter is that the D&D engine is reasonably good for a lot of things, less reasonable but workable for some more things, and not all that great for still other things. That's the nature of rulesets, honestly. We'd be better off if folks just allowed the toggles to exist as they are, and let folks use them, or not.

However, as has been seen time and again over the history of gaming, there's always a chunk of gamers (often several different chunks, honestly) who claim ownership of the soul of the game, and who try to eject anyone playing in a different matter into an Out Group. This is between people, the toggles are merely the standards they fight under.

True, and I'm starting to see this "one true way-ism" right here in the push for player choice above all. That is a viable style, but it is not inherently better than a curated approach.

 

[Mind of tempest]

True, and I'm starting to see this "one true way-ism" right here in the push for player choice above all. That is a viable style, but it is not inherently better than a curated approach.

why not just have the players curate the setting?