What races are left for D&D to do?

[Dualazi]

I found this funny. In the same sentence you as for races to be more distinct, and the bashed a race that has a distinction.

And in that same sentence I also requested "broad mechanical viability" which clashes with being heavily slanted for a particular role. The half-orc could likewise keep much of its distinction (damage dealer/berserker) simply by adding a few rules for how their features can also apply to spells while also expanding the number of character archetypes it supports.

I agree with this, but it is really hard to do and achieve the mechanical viability you mentioned earlier and to not make trap races. The want them to be "balanced" so I don't think they will go to wild.

Personally, I redesign all races because I don't care about trap races. My players are not out to find the best combo of race, class, feat, etc. So I don't need to worry about every race being roughly on par. Our current group is: 2 elves, 1 halfling, 1 lizard folk, 1 dragonborn (who can transform into a Large dragon), and one Large Yuan-ti. I have also had a player be giant and another be a unicorn.

I bet they get some odd stares when they roll into a new town. On topic, I don't even think that it's impossible to balance large PCs, but we haven't even seen them attempt it. The playtesting feature of Unearthed Arcana seems criminally underused since they never put up anything really 'out there'.

That is not true. They clarified that these were tested and considered balanced for general play. The note was about how to play those races, not mechanical viability. Doesn't mean they are well designed races, but your statement is wrong.

At least the ones in Volo's come with a blurb that says "Some of these races are unusual in that they have a reduction to an ability score, and some are more or less powerful than the typical D&D races-additional reasons for the monstrous races to be used in a campaign with care." (page 118) So even as far back as the release as Volo's, we've seen that they're willing to to go back to old paradigms when they feel like it (score penalties) and also willing to put out options that are out of line with their established narrow framework (+/- power). Yet even the way they break their own rules is boring! If they're willing to put out yuan-ti for potential play, with innate spellcasting, immunity to possibly the most common damage type in the game, and magic resistance, the least they can do is try to put out some alternate rules for running tiny/large humanoids, or other off-beat options.

 

[dave2008]

And in that same sentence I also requested "broad mechanical viability" which clashes with being heavily slanted for a particular role. The half-orc could likewise keep much of its distinction (damage dealer/berserker) simply by adding a few rules for how their features can also apply to spells while also expanding the number of character archetypes it supports.

I caught that, but what is "broad mechanical viability?" I am sure my players would consider a half-orc viable for any class. Just because something is not optimal, doesn't mean it is not viable. think this is an issue of opinion and play style.

I bet they get some odd stares when they roll into a new town.

The first time it was a "magic is everywhere" world and it was quite common to have giants in town or minotaur bodyguards. It also had an empire ruled by dragons and they moved about the empire's cities, mixing freely with the empire's smaller folk. So not really any sideways glances in that one. But the current one is a bit more traditional. Depending on where they are it can help or hurt them.

On topic, I don't even think that it's impossible to balance large PCs, but we haven't even seen them attempt it. The playtesting feature of Unearthed Arcana seems criminally underused since they never put up anything really 'out there'.

I do wish they would push the limits a bit more in UA, but I also think it would be hard to do a Large race justice and balance against other PCs without sacrificing broad mechanical viability. Not that I am an expert designer, but i have had a few Large PCs and I know it is difficult. I just stopped trying to balance it mechanically on paper.

At least the ones in Volo's come with a blurb that says "Some of these races are unusual in that they have a reduction to an ability score, and some are more or less powerful than the typical D&D races-additional reasons for the monstrous races to be used in a campaign with care." (page 118)

Yes, that is the quote that they clarified. I tried to find the official comment, but my google-fu failed me. I did find a lot of discussion about how the races in Volo's are balanced though.

 

[Dualazi]

I caught that, but what is "broad mechanical viability?" I am sure my players would consider a half-orc viable for any class. Just because something is not optimal, doesn't mean it is not viable. think this is an issue of opinion and play style.

I would loosely describe it as having some aspect of the racial kit be attractive to a player no matter their class choice. For example, in 4e Eladrin had a short-range teleport as an encounter power (short rest). This ability was good on pretty much everyone, unlike abilities that are restricted to certain attack vectors, for instance. Many of the racial spellcasting in 4e also gave you a choice of any of the mental stats for their DCs and attack modifiers, which also helped make them as applicable as possible.

I do wish they would push the limits a bit more in UA, but I also think it would be hard to do a Large race justice and balance against other PCs without sacrificing broad mechanical viability. Not that I am an expert designer, but i have had a few Large PCs and I know it is difficult. I just stopped trying to balance it mechanically on paper.

Yeah, and one of my continuing huge problems with 5e is the designers basically pretend the exploration pillar doesn't exist. Large creatures/players would be a lot more of a consideration if rations were scarce and they needed 4x the food and water to survive.

Combat wise I think they could just be honest and give them a +1d4 to damage and say the game isn't balanced for straight-up double dice on PCs. Other features could be potentially negative, but reminding the DM that squeezing rules exist and highlighting cover differences might help more in the long run.

Yes, that is the quote that they clarified. I tried to find the official comment, but my google-fu failed me. I did find a lot of discussion about how the races in Volo's are balanced though.

The races intended for players are decent (firbolg, tabaxi etc), most of the lack of balance is centered on the monstrous side of things, full orcs, yuan-ti, goblins etc.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

I love of variety of PC races. Monster PCs races are fun like wearing cosplay or Halloween deguise. I miss the blue, a psionic goblin subrace, and the shardmind were "freak" but I would like a second race of living constructs.

After playing with Deadeye, a half-ef+half-orc from the videogame "Orcs must die: unchained" I like the idea of a hybrid half-orc and half-elf, maybe with some stats from the sharakim, from 3.5 "Race of Destiny".

The races I don't miss at all are the neraphins and the wildren from 3.5 planar handbook.

What do you think about the odonti, a race cousin of orcs from FR?

 

[dave2008]

The races intended for players are decent (firbolg, tabaxi etc), most of the lack of balance is centered on the monstrous side of things, full orcs, yuan-ti, goblins etc.

Several of the articles I found were specifically about how the yuan-ti was balanced.

 

[dave2008]

Yeah, and one of my continuing huge problems with 5e is the designers basically pretend the exploration pillar doesn't exist. Large creatures/players would be a lot more of a consideration if rations were scarce and they needed 4x the food and water to survive.

If I recall they were dead set against Large PCs in 4e as well. I didn't play 3e, but I ran a 1e campaign w/ Large characters, of course i made my own rules for that.

 

[TwoSix]

I'd say some kind of Vryloka/Dhampir style race would make the most sense.

In general, popular fantasy races for games fall into two categories:
1) Like humans, but magical and prettier. Think elves.
2) So out there they force a character to be built around that concept. Like a centaur, or a pixie.

 

[Mistwell]

My players want a fairy-like creature and a satyr like creature.

 

[Satyrn]

The game still doesn't have munchkins.

 

[Slit518]

The game still doesn't have munchkins.

No, but my game does

Seriously, I added Munchkins as a race way back in I think 2005 or so.

And then I fleshed them out a bit on a website I created in 2011.

You can check out their concept here!
https://sites.google.com/site/labandlich/the-par/races/munchkin