D&D 5E What is the appeal of the weird fantasy races?

[loverdrive]

Are you sure about that? Maybe you meant "5E" because "D&D" most certainly can do humans only and 3 classes. It was designed that way.

In that case only one class. No clerics or wizards in hundred years war, y'know

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No-magic 5e definitely can be done, but mechanically that is far more limiting than not allowing all races. Most of the mechanical weight of 5e is in the classes, and most classes use magic. Conversely races have very little mechanical weight, and with Tasha's have very little mechanical identity. You could easily have everyone just play one race and it wouldn't have significant impact to available mechanics.

 

[Minigiant]

Are there "tons of other characters" mechanically?

Because we're down to three or four classes from the PHB in 5e. Fighter, barbarian, rogue, and possibly monk. Everyone has to be one of the three classes because all the other classes are spellcasters - and you also don't want Arcane Tricksters, Eldritch Knights, and Four Element monks (not that you want the latter anyway, but that's a mechanical issue).

You then have no healing magic to justify D&D's absurd hit point rules. You have no magic. Your combat is D&D Cinematic Combat with the absurd consequence-free hit points. And you've basically nothing tying you to the world.

If someone wants to run a game without spellcasters that's more than fine - there are plenty of games where you don't have roughly 40% of the player facing rulebook made up out of spells. If someone wants to do it using D&D rules that makes me seriously question their competence as a DM. It's like trying to use the claw on the hammer head as a screwdriver.

To me, it's less a knock on the DM's competence and more a knock on the DM's vision. Again it's a case of a person not seeing the appeal of certain things.

 

[Hussar]

Are you sure about that? Maybe you meant "5E" because "D&D" most certainly can do humans only and 3 classes. It was designed that way.

Congratulations on being technically correct. Well done you. Note, that those rules were expanded upon almost immediately. Even back then, 3 classes wasn't enough. But, yeah, being technically correct is the best kind of correct.

And, heck, you weren't even correct back then because you still had more race options than just humans, even in that book.

 

[Minigiant]

No-magic 5e definitely can be done, but mechanically that is far more limiting than not allowing all races. Most of the mechanical weight of 5e is in the classes, and most classes use magic. Conversely races have very little mechanical weight, and with Tasha's have very little mechanical identity. You could easily have everyone just play one race and it wouldn't have significant impact to available mechanics.

I think the weird races have more appeal now.

This is because the tradition races mechanically and mentally are becoming more samey. It's the weird races, like the beastfolk or gobliniods, who still have a bit of uniqueness in mechanics and story as time marches forward.

 

[reelo]

In that case only one class. No clerics or wizards in hundred years war, y'know

1974 D&D has "Fighting-Men", "Magic-Users", and "Clerics". It even has Dwarves, Elves, and Halflings.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Just because you can,doesn't mean you want to.

If you want to play a fantastical character, and the campaign on offer is gritty realism then you aren't going to enjoy that campaign. Find a different game, don't try and spoil it for everyone else.

Remember, a DM should really want their players to enjoy playing their PCs. If you shut down their top 10 PC ideas at the time, you likely wont get their most enthusiastic performance.

It's not a case of "shutting down" it's a case of defining the parameters of the campaign. If the player is incapable of creating a character they want to play that fits within the parameters of the campaign then they won't like the campaign. Take your toys and go play somewhere else.

 

[reelo]

Congratulations on being technically correct. Well done you. Note, that those rules were expanded upon almost immediately. Even back then, 3 classes wasn't enough. But, yeah, being technically correct is the best kind of correct.

And, heck, you weren't even correct back then because you still had more race options than just humans, even in that book.

Yes indeed, Thiefs soon followed suit. And whilst elves, dwarves, and halflings were present from the get-go, up until 3E they were limited in class-selection and advancement, which was arguably both done for balancing reasons and so that human PCs were "encouraged".
I'd say the theme was "the normal encountering the weird", and that is more compelling than "the weird encountering the weird."

 

[Paul Farquhar]

DM: I'm running a campaign based on the Hundred Years War.
Player: I'm out. No spellcasters.
DM: There are tons of other characters you can play.
Player: Are any of them spellcasters?
DM: No but...
Player: I'm out. I like casting spells.

Then you are out. That's okay, the universe can function perfectly well without you.

I could certainly devise a Hundred Years War campaign that did have magic - the people who lived at the time certainly believed magic was real - but if the DM says the parameters of the campaign is "no spellcasters" then you either play a non-spellcaster or you don't play at all, it's very simple.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If everyone at the table is playing a "weird and exotic" race while no one in the game world bats an eye, is it really weird or exotic?

Yes. Yes it is.

Because it isn't about the world going "Hey, look how weird and exotic they are!" it is about the player playing something that is unusual and that they haven't explored before.

Is eating crickets weird and exotic? Not really. Hundreds of thousands of people around the world do it. Is it weird and exotic for an American who has never done it? Yes, very much so. So if they wanted to try something new and exoctic, they would do this thing that hundreds of thousands of people do every day, but that in their culture is strange and nearly never done.