What doesn't belong in the "core"

[harlokin]

Why should things like dwarven mages or elven paladins need to be in the core? Why not just make them optional? /QUOTE]

Because there is no reason not to have Dwarven Mages or Elven Paladins as perfectly viable options for the Players and GMs that desire them. The fact that they may have not been in the 1978 version of DnD is not argument enough to exclude them.

 

[rounser]

Why should things like dwarven mages or elven paladins need to be in the core? Why not just make them optional? /QUOTE]

Because there is no reason not to have Dwarven Mages or Elven Paladins as perfectly viable options for the Players and GMs that desire them. The fact that they may have not been in the 1978 version of DnD is not argument enough to exclude them.

Maybe. Spellusing dwarves and elven knights do indeed pop up in mythology, so you've a strong case there. But you've got "Favourite Class: Warblade" as your signature. Do you understand why a "warblade" doesn't deserve core rules status and ubiquity equal to a wizard or fighter, though? At least, not in a game claiming to be D&D, which, prior to WOTC's arguably unwise take on such things has generally had a strong archetypal basis for core classes, rather than made-up word conjugations attached to ability packages.

 

[ferratus]

Because there is no reason not to have Dwarven Mages or Elven Paladins as perfectly viable options for the Players and GMs that desire them. The fact that they may have not been in the 1978 version of DnD is not argument enough to exclude them.

Yes, though I see that people want to exclude things like dragonborn and tieflings.

I can honestly tell you I've seen more tieflings and dragonborn (3e half-dragons) than I've seen elven paladins or dwarven mages.

Heck, I've seen more dragonborn than I've seen gnomes by a factor of 5. That's because I'm the only one I know who loves gnomes, but I've seen 5 dragonborn in 4e, and 3 half-dragons in 3e.

If shifters, warforged, dragonborn, and tieflings have to go because some people don't like them then the gnome has to go first, if we're talking about popularity. The gnome seems to be about as popular as the shardmind.

 

[Wormwood]

The gnome seems to be about as popular as the shardmind.

Wow.

Way to hate on shardminds, dude.

 

[rounser]

Yes, though I see that people want to exclude things like dragonborn and tieflings.

I can honestly tell you I've seen more tieflings and dragonborn (3e half-dragons) than I've seen elven paladins or dwarven mages.

Heck, I've seen more dragonborn than I've seen gnomes by a factor of 5. That's because I'm the only one I know who loves gnomes, but I've seen 5 dragonborn in 4e, and 3 half-dragons in 3e.

If shifters, warforged, dragonborn, and tieflings have to go because some people don't like them then the gnome has to go first, if we're talking about popularity. The gnome seems to be about as popular as the shardmind.

A lot of that is probably mechanical, given the mindset that 3E and 4E draw people into. Gnomes always have been written as min/max also-rans, whereas I've played tieflings solely for the ability score bennies, as I'm sure have countless others.

This makes their core status particularly pernicious, because people feel obliged to over-represent what should be rare or minority races for build reasons. This problem is partially solved by (surprise!) getting them out of the core rules, where their presence as the min/maxer's obvious path becomes too tempting not to take, if you're so inclined.

 

[ferratus]

Wow.

Way to hate on shardminds, dude.

I love gnomes. But I seem to be the only one I've ever seen playing one in all my years of D&D.

However, one guy was willing to give the shardmind a go. The guy that is always insisting we play 2e, oddly enough.

 

[harlokin]

Maybe. Spellusing dwarves and elven knights do indeed pop up in mythology, so you've a strong case there. But you've got "Favourite Class: Warblade" as your signature. Do you understand why a "warblade" doesn't deserve core rules status and ubiquity equal to a wizard or fighter, though? At least, not in a game claiming to be D&D, which, prior to WOTC's arguably unwise take on such things has generally had a strong archetypal basis for core classes, rather than made-up word conjugations attached to ability packages.

I agree, but the only reason the Warblade was ever required was the poor state of the Fighter; it was much of what the Fighter Class should have been.

I hope the 5e Fighter will have sufficient options in terms of its potential abilities that it will cater for different play styles, and that the presence or not of the Warblade is irrelevant.

 

[rounser]

I'd also add that because it's usually been a suboptimal choice unless you wanted an illusionist in 1E, mechanically, that gnome-o-philes must be especially sincere in their enthusiasm for the race.

Call me a cynic, but given that dragonborn look as ugly as a sack of hammers (IMO, YMMV), I've always suspected that the appeal might lie somewhat in the numbers.

[Joking]Gnome popularity might be easily rectified if they were given mechanically optimal reasons to play one, such as a breath weapon.[/Joking]

 

[Saracenus]

I love reading posts like this (and there are a bunch here) talking about what someone wants/demands/will not abide without. Its only wind in the forest moving the trees.

However, the open playtest is the great equalizer. Folks will see what the developers and designers have been working on. Folks will put forth their likes and dislikes and feedback will be had directly from those who are engaged in the process. Things will then change/morph/mutate, others will solidify.

All through this D&D 5e will be something for a vast majority of players and DMs will enjoy playing, not some faction that claims primacy.

They have already talked about the 10%, you know those lovable 10% that loooooooooove themselves some Gnomes (or insert X thing from Y version of D&D) that will be unhappy if their part of the game isn't validated.

They are going to cater to the largest possible audience and that means the 10% that loooooooooooove themselves some Tieflings, Dragonborn and Warlords (insert X that you don't like) are going to get love too. D&D Next core will not 100% cater to your very specific needs. Start managing your expectations now.

There are going to be things you love about D&D Next and others you absolutely loath in it. The beauty is, you will be able to pick and choose what you want to keep and toss away. You will be able to make it your game. And if core doesn't float your boat you will be able to customize your game with modular rule sets.

So I come to the crux of this post, what possible good is coming from taking a hard stand now? We really don't have enough information to form such a stand. Even if we did, the end result is in flux so what is the point?

In the end I am much more excited by the desire of WotC to include people, in the process of building this edition and validating their play styles, rather than restricting it to a small vision.

As much as I love 4e as an elegant version of D&D (and I have played/DMed them all) I know that it left a lot of people out in the cold. That is not acceptable. I want an edition that allows me to play with all my D&D brethren, not one that excludes them. I am so incredibly tired of fighting with them about which version is better or truer, or more importantly the funnest. I hope to see you at the metaphorical and literal table.

My two coppers

 

[Invisible Stalker]

I've seen a lot of dragonborn since 4e debuted and I greatly enjoyed it when I played one.

If WOTC asked me which five races should be included in the 5e "Basic set" I'd say human, elf, dwarf, halfling and dragonborn.