Tiefling and half-orc should not be in the PHB

[Mattachine]

Fair point, Kobold Avenger.
I was one of those people who didn't go for 2e right away because of the omissions.

 

[MoonSong]

If the new edition is to truly consolidate editions, then they should be in the first PHB. It's not truly consolidating editions if they don't.

And it was disastrous for 4e not having Bards, Barbarians, Druids, Sorcerers and Monks or Gnomes and Half-Orcs in the 1st PHB, as many avoided 4e because it didn't have those classes and races, even if they showed up later. I seem to remember hearing about how many clearly avoided 2e because it didn't have Assassins or Half-Orcs in the PHB, even if both of them did show up later in 2e.

I don't care if the PHB is 320 pages and more than $50, they need to include all if they're going to meet their goal of consolidating editions.

Exactly! One of the biggest barriers I had when 4e showed up resumed to this:

"We are shifting to 4e"

"Cool, can I convert my Rogue/Druid/Sorcerer/MT?"

"mmm no, multiclassing no longer works that way, and Druid and Sorcerer aren't in the core, neither prestige classes"

"Well then I'll make a new character, a Bard"

"Bards aren't there either"

"A gnome rogue with a lyre then"

"No gnomes either, oh and they removed perform"

"A halfling rogue then"

"Just a warning, rogues work a little different..."

It was bad when it happened to 3.5 players and I don't want it to happen to 4e players either, they were the one who actually stayed, they don't deserve to be put aside by wizards. As such it'd be better if the core included all of the core races for 4e, pluss those that was core in 3.x and got cut from 4e.

 

[Khaalis]

As stated early, I agree that all of the main PHB races of the past, 1E through 4E should be included, if not even have a few of the more popular non-PHB races added as well, such as a proper "big-guy" species whether it be a half-ogre, goliath (or better yet firbolg), etc. There are plenty of very popular non-PHB1 races that could be added to make a wide range of styles from Tolkienesque to Sword-and-Sorcery games.

If they go back to a print layout similar to 1E/3E (a more encyclopedic layout with smaller fonts, wider columns, smaller margins - vs. the more magazine style layouts of 2E/4E) and trimmed the fluff slightly (to add more in a race expansion book) they could easily fit a race to a single or 1.5 pages. Personally, I wouldn't mind a 20 page racial chapter in the PHB.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I don't care for people saying "tieflings go back to 2nd ed". It's clearly not the same race. Tiefling's not the coolest-sounding word in the universe, but as a description for a race of planar cast-offs with a hodgepodge of appearances, it's not so bad.

Using it to describe hulking, crimson-skinned horned warriors straight out of heavy-metal album covers is kind of silly. Can't they have a better name?

 

[boredgremlin]

As there were people, in this very topic, advocating "alien" races should be only in MM because they didn't want to argue with their players about races not allowed in their campaign it's perfectly reasonable to come to the same conclusion after reading your post.

My point is: I want full race entries for a lot of races, not some half-made entries on Monster Manual, like we had on 3E.

I think there are more important uses of page space then PC race descriptions. Things like a system for creating or customizing your own spells or more feats/powers/ whatever they call the class customization mechanic in 5e.

 

[underfoot007ct]

I don't care for people saying "tieflings go back to 2nd ed". It's clearly not the same race. Tiefling's not the coolest-sounding word in the universe, but as a description for a race of planar cast-offs with a hodgepodge of appearances, it's not so bad.

Using it to describe hulking, crimson-skinned horned warriors straight out of heavy-metal album covers is kind of silly. Can't they have a better name?

If Tieflings are clearly not the same race, maybe you can explain it to us. As for "silly", I think that is in the eye of the beholder. And what is wrong with "Heavy Metal" albums, but now we call them CDs.

Tiefling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Aeolius]

I was one of those people who didn't go for 2e right away because of the omissions.

That was one of my issues with 2e (and 4e), as well.

Still I can understand those who feel that all PC races from editions 1-4 (no Basic elves as a class) shoudl be represented. After all, I had a player with an alu-demon character in my last 1e game and I have a player with a viletooth lizardman character in my current game.

 

[boredgremlin]

I don't care for people saying "tieflings go back to 2nd ed". It's clearly not the same race. Tiefling's not the coolest-sounding word in the universe, but as a description for a race of planar cast-offs with a hodgepodge of appearances, it's not so bad.

Using it to describe hulking, crimson-skinned horned warriors straight out of heavy-metal album covers is kind of silly. Can't they have a better name?

LOL thats kind of funny. The only teiflings I have ever actually seen played were either the metal artwork kind or the hot seductress with horns kind.

No one at my table has ever played the moody, outcast type that they are usually described in the books as. I cant honestly say why.

 

[underfoot007ct]

If the new edition is to consolidate editions, then tieflings and dragonborn don't need to be in the PHB, since they only made it into the 4e PHB. They could be included in the DMG as options, or in a supplement.

Half-orcs weren't in the 2e PHB, but were in 1e, 3e, and 4e. They should be in.

But if 5E-Next is the edition to unite all the editions, then why omit Dragonborn & Tieflings?

 

[Klaus]

I don't care for people saying "tieflings go back to 2nd ed". It's clearly not the same race. Tiefling's not the coolest-sounding word in the universe, but as a description for a race of planar cast-offs with a hodgepodge of appearances, it's not so bad.

Using it to describe hulking, crimson-skinned horned warriors straight out of heavy-metal album covers is kind of silly. Can't they have a better name?

Humanoids with large horns and tails? There ya go:

3e tiefling by Tony DiTerlizzi