Tiefling and half-orc should not be in the PHB

[MoonSong]

I read the first 3 pages and last 3 pages of the thread. Apologies if I missed something golden in pages 4-9.


Absolutely! My current campaign is set beneath the surface of the sea. As you might expect, core races are not permitted. PCs must have a natural swim speed and the ability to breathe underwater without the use of magic. Thus I am a proponent of the "Savage Species" route - any intelligent being should be a playable option (Apologies to Gurgalurk, my gray ooze illusionist).


You know, I like this idea. In 1e, half-orcs could be of human, goblin, or hobgoblin stock. So use orc as the playable base and expand half-orcs in the MM to include variable parentage.

Human, elf, orc, halfling, and dwarf seem like a varied choice for a start. Yes, I like gnomes as much as the next person, but I think the initial choices should be simplified for new players. Half-elves, half-orcs, and gnomes, along with most intelligent creatures in the MM, should be presented with playability in mind. After all, sea elves, merfolk, and locathah are the "core races" in my undersea game.

Just five races is enough, for a starting box not for core, core isn't "just for noobs", neither the most minimal options for the game, nor what must be enoforced on every table. Core is about the minimal rules and elements needed to fully play the game and all of the options that can be taken for granted. Everything outside the core remains a luxury (and yes, even a homebrew setting is a luxury, the only difference is you pay for it with time and effort instead of money).

Even inside core, every character option not in the PHB is also a luxury for players. As such even when I think core should include some way to use all or most inteligent creatures as playable races, that shouldn't force the most liked and inconic races outside the PHB. Having twelve races doesn't confuse new players, what confuses them is having thousands of options suddenly dumped into them. Having a too few races in the PHB, punishes too many players -who used to take their beloved tieflings, gnomes, etc, for granted and suddenly find them become a luxury- for little benefit.

The following has no specific dedicatory, really.
The most civil way for a DM/GM to introduce players to a homebrew world is say "This is the world it works this way, the playable races and available classes are these, these other stuff is off-limits, if you really want to play with that and have though of some way to make it work without disrupting the world or monopolizing gameplay, I'm open to suggestions". No rulebook in the world will magically solve the interpersonal and compatibility issues between a GM and her players.

And "I don't want x race on my homebrew, ergo it shouldn't be in the core" is a bad argument, every race has it's lovers and it's detractors, as such each one of them is bound to be left out of a Homebrew setting at some point, we may as well get no races in the PHB.

 

[avin]

And "I don't want x race on my homebrew, ergo it shouldn't be in the core" is a bad argument, every race has it's lovers and it's detractors, as such each one of them is bound to be left out of a Homebrew setting at some point, we may as well get no races in the PHB.

This. People should not assume everybody plays a human/elf/dwarf/hobbit game... we should respect each other preferences instead of march against some race, like its not necessary.

RPG is a game of imagination and I want to be free to choose what races will exist on my X world, on Y campaign... more is better.

 

[Sunseeker]

This. People should not assume everybody plays a human/elf/dwarf/hobbit game... we should respect each other preferences instead of march against some race, like its not necessary.

RPG is a game of imagination and I want to be free to choose what races will exist on my X world, on Y campaign... more is better.

Exactly, I don't see why people can't grasp this.

 

[tuxgeo]

The Red Starter Box should be very simple with four races and four classes, no feats, no powers, no skills, no themes, no exotic weapons. This will be great for new players and pleasing to the Old School.

But the (almost simultaneously published) Advanced Players' Handbook should offer a full array of choices. This will be good for experienced players who like options, some familiar stuff and a great mixture of everything.

That would be a good way for WotC to go.

(Sorry, cannot give more XP to Tallifer at this time.)

 

[El Mahdi]

I would like to see Tiefling and Half-Orc in the D&D Next PHB.
At least as long as the Tieflings are the 3E version and not the 4E version. I like both. I think it's quite easy to simply exclude them from a campaign if they are inappropriate to it. And shouldn't be excluded from the PHB just because some DM's/Players/fans don't like them. If you don't like them, then simply don't use them.

But, I do feel that it is 100% the DM's perogative, and not the players, to not allow certain races in their campaigns...whatever their reasons are. The DM determines the world and environment. Period. IMO, that is not open for debate. If you absolutely cannot play in a campaign because a racial choice you so had your heart set on isn't available, then it's probably a good time to find another hobby...

 

[variant]

This. People should not assume everybody plays a human/elf/dwarf/hobbit game... we should respect each other preferences instead of march against some race, like its not necessary.

RPG is a game of imagination and I want to be free to choose what races will exist on my X world, on Y campaign... more is better.

No one is assuming anything. Of course some people want to play weird and strange things. That is what expansion books are for.

 

[Sunseeker]

No one is assuming anything. Of course some people want to play weird and strange things. That is what expansion books are for.

Yes, there are two primary assumptions in this thread.

1: That weirder races are less played.
2: That less played races are less important.

The ENTIRE argument in favor throughout this thread is basically this:

"I don't like/play tieflings, since my personal experience is representative of the game as a whole, I don't think tieflings should be included in Core."

And the attitude that comes along with it is: "oh, you'll get the races you like later, or whatever."

Basically, people don't care as long as they get their cookie, and whats worse is that they want their cookie by denying someone else theirs. The argument is tantamount to that people who don't play humans/elves/dwarves/halflings are playing the game wrong. And that's not a very well liked argument now is it?

 

[Belphanior]

There are two problems with OP's sentiment.

1. There is no reason why one's own preference for races should dictate what the game's core rules should be. Even if the Tolkien-races are the most core races of D&D, that only means they should be included. But just because some things must be included does not mean that all other things should be excluded. The half-orcs, gnomes, and tieflings have enough tradition behind them to warrant inclusion in core D&D.

2. Moving on from the nebulous "core D&D" and towards the specific D&D in question, D&DN/5e, explicitly stated to be a unifying edition that will support the same kind of experiences you may have had with any other edition... why would they possibly put in the least amount of races ever? This contradicts the design goal.



Conclusion:

OP's opinion can be ignored because it's practically self-evident that the designers of the next edition don't share it.

 

[variant]

Yes, there are two primary assumptions in this thread.

1: That weirder races are less played.
2: That less played races are less important.

The ENTIRE argument in favor throughout this thread is basically this:

"I don't like/play tieflings, since my personal experience is representative of the game as a whole, I don't think tieflings should be included in Core."

And the attitude that comes along with it is: "oh, you'll get the races you like later, or whatever."

Basically, people don't care as long as they get their cookie, and whats worse is that they want their cookie by denying someone else theirs. The argument is tantamount to that people who don't play humans/elves/dwarves/halflings are playing the game wrong. And that's not a very well liked argument now is it?

There can be literally thousands of races. Should they all be included in Core?

 

[Invisible Stalker]

The Red Starter Box should be very simple with four races and four classes, no feats, no powers, no skills, no themes, no exotic weapons. This will be great for new players and pleasing to the Old School.

But the (almost simultaneously published) Advanced Players' Handbook should offer a full array of choices. This will be good for experienced players who like options, some familiar stuff and a great mixture of everything.

That's my recommendation as well. The Classic Four for the box, 10-12 (maybe more) in the PHB.

If WOTC wants to be considerate of 4E players they are going to have to include as many 4E classes and races as possible right off the bat.

The gnome and half-orc might be left out in favor of new 5E playable races entitled sparkling vampire and shirtless werewolf.