NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Khaalis" data-source="post: 5822988" data-attributes="member: 2167">This is a a perfect example of what I was saying about Settings. Settings are all subjective, and every game is different. It really doesn't matter what is in the "book" when it comes to what people allow/disallow, like/dislike. One group may hate and disallow pecks as players even though they're in the PHB, but love and allow orcs even though they are a "monster".  The problem seems to be coming down to WHO gets to say what is a "PHB Race" and what is a "Monster".I am almost to the point of thinking that the PHB shouldn't include ANY races at all other than human.  In reality, far too many people disagree on what is "monstrous" and what isn't.  If you were to truly walk into an Elf, they'd be as alien to you as waking up to find your dog could talk. Yet they suffer form the "human with pointy ears" syndrome.I have found over the years that basically ANY "Intelligent" species could be a player race (e.g. Palladium's Rifts).  Perhaps the solution is to simply include humans in the PHB and then add a "{Race X} as a Player Race" entry to any race in the Monster Manual that could also be a player race, including elves, dwarves, orcs, etc.  It would then be up to the Setting Book (or the DM in a homebrew) to throw the switches by having a list of playable races in that setting. For instance Eberron has its own races that have become very popular but are setting specific.  Should a Warforged be a "core" PHB race?  Probably not, but the rules should be readily available for those gaming groups that want them, without having to wait X years for a new version of the setting to be released (if ever at all).</blockquote>

Verification