Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
[UPDATED] Most D&D Players Prefer Humans - Without Feats!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 7737154" data-attributes="member: 18"><p>This seems like an interesting point but I do wonder if they have good enough data to really support it, especially given how circumstantial "powerful" can be with a race, and how many people play the non-"big three" races (all of which, I would argue, are in fact fairly solid-to-powerful races, especially when combined with stereotypical class selections) relative to the others.</p><p></p><p>I mean, just look at any guide to classes - which races are at the top for that class or subclass varies wildly. So how can one say "X race is powerful but no-one picks it!", really?</p><p></p><p>I think there are issues which make this more complex than it's being represented as.</p><p></p><p>1) 5E does not have the insanely huge power variations between races that previous editions often had. It's hard to think of any 5E races so strong that they're head and shoulders ahead of other alternatives. Instead they're just slightly better. This is good work in most senses - people should be choosing what they want to choose, but equally it calls into question strong assertions re: power.</p><p></p><p>2) Aesthetics is indeed the dominant factor, but that doesn't mean that power doesn't factor in significantly. It's just that it will be secondary and purely negative. As discussed, 5E largely lacks "OMG I MUST PLAY THIS"-type races in terms of power (even post-Xanathar, most racial feats are niche and non-humans are less likely to have feats anyway). In 2E, for example, you saw people picking "uncool" races because they had +1 STR and a 19 max, for example, because having 19 strength was completely insane compared to even 18/XX, let alone for classes with no access to 18/XX. Or a dubious 2E race would have a ton of spells or abilities built in, which would make way more people keen on it than otherwise. Again 5E has nothing like that (you have to pay a feat to access cool spells, and they're still usually toned-down from 2E).</p><p></p><p>Anyway point is, because of the power-differential being lower, the value of aesthetics is relatively higher. But decent aesthetics are easy to get, and it's easy to find races which combine decent aesthetics with strong relevance for your class. Thus I would argue any race with good aesthetics but poor mechanics is likely getting shoved to the bottom of the barrel.</p><p></p><p>3) The vast differential in terms of access to races probably really limits the data on anything not in the PHB. What I'd be interested to know, really, is are there, say, more halflings or gnomes out there than races which are only in paid books? Because I have a suspicion that there may be, say, more variant-Tieflings or non-PHB variant-elves out there than gnomes, at all, for example. And if only 1% or 5% of D&D players even have access to a race or race-variant, would you even be able to statistically determine if power factored in? Especially trying to factor in class suitability.</p><p></p><p>I guess what I'm saying is, in the end, it's probably true to say they can't see a correlation between power and popularity, but I think that's because such a correlation would be tremendously hard to detect in 5E, not because it isn't there at all. Further, I think jumping from "we can't see a correlation" to "people are all about literary and cinematic models" and so on is not something you could even support with data. I am incredibly skeptical that dwarves are popular because they have good literary or cinematic models, or even great aesthetics. I'm pretty sure they're popular because they have decent aesthetics, and abilities which whilst not necessarily actually that great, tend to leap off the page at people (it's pretty hard to say no to +2 STR and CON as a Fighter, for example, even if the armour and weapon proficiencies are irrelevant to you).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 7737154, member: 18"] This seems like an interesting point but I do wonder if they have good enough data to really support it, especially given how circumstantial "powerful" can be with a race, and how many people play the non-"big three" races (all of which, I would argue, are in fact fairly solid-to-powerful races, especially when combined with stereotypical class selections) relative to the others. I mean, just look at any guide to classes - which races are at the top for that class or subclass varies wildly. So how can one say "X race is powerful but no-one picks it!", really? I think there are issues which make this more complex than it's being represented as. 1) 5E does not have the insanely huge power variations between races that previous editions often had. It's hard to think of any 5E races so strong that they're head and shoulders ahead of other alternatives. Instead they're just slightly better. This is good work in most senses - people should be choosing what they want to choose, but equally it calls into question strong assertions re: power. 2) Aesthetics is indeed the dominant factor, but that doesn't mean that power doesn't factor in significantly. It's just that it will be secondary and purely negative. As discussed, 5E largely lacks "OMG I MUST PLAY THIS"-type races in terms of power (even post-Xanathar, most racial feats are niche and non-humans are less likely to have feats anyway). In 2E, for example, you saw people picking "uncool" races because they had +1 STR and a 19 max, for example, because having 19 strength was completely insane compared to even 18/XX, let alone for classes with no access to 18/XX. Or a dubious 2E race would have a ton of spells or abilities built in, which would make way more people keen on it than otherwise. Again 5E has nothing like that (you have to pay a feat to access cool spells, and they're still usually toned-down from 2E). Anyway point is, because of the power-differential being lower, the value of aesthetics is relatively higher. But decent aesthetics are easy to get, and it's easy to find races which combine decent aesthetics with strong relevance for your class. Thus I would argue any race with good aesthetics but poor mechanics is likely getting shoved to the bottom of the barrel. 3) The vast differential in terms of access to races probably really limits the data on anything not in the PHB. What I'd be interested to know, really, is are there, say, more halflings or gnomes out there than races which are only in paid books? Because I have a suspicion that there may be, say, more variant-Tieflings or non-PHB variant-elves out there than gnomes, at all, for example. And if only 1% or 5% of D&D players even have access to a race or race-variant, would you even be able to statistically determine if power factored in? Especially trying to factor in class suitability. I guess what I'm saying is, in the end, it's probably true to say they can't see a correlation between power and popularity, but I think that's because such a correlation would be tremendously hard to detect in 5E, not because it isn't there at all. Further, I think jumping from "we can't see a correlation" to "people are all about literary and cinematic models" and so on is not something you could even support with data. I am incredibly skeptical that dwarves are popular because they have good literary or cinematic models, or even great aesthetics. I'm pretty sure they're popular because they have decent aesthetics, and abilities which whilst not necessarily actually that great, tend to leap off the page at people (it's pretty hard to say no to +2 STR and CON as a Fighter, for example, even if the armour and weapon proficiencies are irrelevant to you). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
[UPDATED] Most D&D Players Prefer Humans - Without Feats!
Top