Tired of all the new races for players

81 posts / 0 new
Last post
I know the game has to expand or people will get bored. But adding all these new races to play drives me crazy. I'm fine with dragonborn two elves type tiefling etc in the book but adding new races all the time Minotaur goblin ogre half demon angel whatever pulls away from core
Then don't play them?

We don't have goblins, ogres, and half demons as player races.

I'd love to see Goblin and Kobold get a writeup for PC use. 
You are better off having balanced options. You are also within your right to use whatever rules you wish at your table. Don't complain about getting options.
Wait.  What? 

First I see a comment about damage at fist level being "crazy", and then a claim that there are too many races?  Are we playing the same game?
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
You may now attempt to explain why having more options is a bad thing.  I, personally, am sick to death of dwarf-elf-halfling-gnome-human, and would be quite pleased if the lot of them were kicked to the curb in the next edition.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I'm tired of peoples who have a close minded, traditionalist view of what is fantasy. 
What's wrong in 'aliens'? Games like Paladin's Quest (SNES) shown us that non standart stuff can be epic.

If it don't fit your world, just don't allow them and move on.


Sad to see that more options = 'bad' for somes. Albeit unlike Salla, I say - 'you can walk and chew gum' - you can have old classics and new stuff both, and it's okay. 
This is pretty easy to handle, to be honest. Make three groups: Common, Uncommon, and Rare. Place the various races in these three groups.

- Common races have no restriction. They are all over the place in the world, blend into a crowd easily, and are only remarkable by their status and ability.
Eberron Example Commons: Humans, Half-Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes, Halflings, Elves.

- Uncommon races are restricted to one party member per race. This is best used for PCs that should be noteworthy for their race, but not 'stop and stare'-worthy.
Eberron Example Uncommons: Half-Orcs, Shifters, Changelings, Kalashtar, Warforged, Goblins, Hobgoblins (maybe add in Dragonborn, Tieflings & Eladrin).

- Rare races are heavily restricted - only one per party total. These are the guys that get the stares and extra attention from guards.
Eberron Example Rares: Everything that isn't common or uncommon.

Addendum - I'd apply this to some backgrounds as well. As a final Eberron example, characters of any race from a different continent than Khorvaire should probably be considered Uncommon at least. Unless, of course, you want a 'different' kind of campaign other than standard, which is cool in its own right, just requires different boundaries for party comp.
4e D&D is not a "Tabletop MMO." It is not Massively Multiplayer, and is usually not played Online. Come up with better descriptions of your complaints, cuz this one means jack ****.
This is pretty easy to handle, to be honest. Make three groups: Common, Uncommon, and Rare. Place the various races in these three groups.

- Common races have no restriction. They are all over the place in the world, blend into a crowd easily, and are only remarkable by their status and ability.
Eberron Example Commons: Humans, Half-Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes, Halflings, Elves.

- Uncommon races are restricted to one party member per race. This is best used for PCs that should be noteworthy for their race, but not 'stop and stare'-worthy.
Eberron Example Uncommons: Half-Orcs, Shifters, Changelings, Kalashtar, Warforged, Goblins, Hobgoblins (maybe add in Dragonborn, Tieflings & Eladrin).

- Rare races are heavily restricted - only one per party total. These are the guys that get the stares and extra attention from guards.
Eberron Example Rares: Everything that isn't common or uncommon.

Addendum - I'd apply this to some backgrounds as well. As a final Eberron example, characters of any race from a different continent than Khorvaire should probably be considered Uncommon at least. Unless, of course, you want a 'different' kind of campaign other than standard, which is cool in its own right, just requires different boundaries for party comp.

Actually, this is NOT  a good idea.

 The heroes, the pcs are SPECIAL. They should not be restricted - and some of those restricted races have also MORE reasons then to be adventurers, if you needed an example.

If there is ONLY 2%of Awakened (magic able) peoples in Shadowrun, and that a party of ALL Awakened (or other rarer stuff like metavariants (to closest thing to 'subraces' in SR) ) is ok and not forbidden in SR, why should there be restrictions in D&D?

Arcane Guyver, the players should play what they want. The in game rarety in population numbers should have NO bearing on what theyc an play, and DM should NOT restrict this. This is an uncrative, imaginationless and stiffling answer to a non problem.
 This is an uncrative, imaginationless and stiffling answer to a non problem.



So, instead of just shutting him down, let's try and see what has merit in his suggestion and work with that.

I agree with Ubber in that a party should not necessarily reflect population bias as they are special but that should only apply to restrictions on character creation. Players should be able to play whatever race they want, or you'll end up with unnecessary fights over who gets to be the "special" race.

However I do agree that some races should be usual and some should be unusual. A Dragonborn in Breland should attract more attention than a Human but that should be a roleplaying consideration and not a mechanics one.
 
 This is an uncrative, imaginationless and stiffling answer to a non problem.



So, instead of just shutting him down, let's try and see what has merit in his suggestion and work with that.

I agree with Ubber in that a party should not necessarily reflect population bias as they are special but that should only apply to restrictions on character creation. Players should be able to play whatever race they want, or you'll end up with unnecessary fights over who gets to be the "special" race.

However I do agree that some races should be usual and some should be unusual. A Dragonborn in Breland should attract more attention than a Human but that should be a roleplaying consideration and not a mechanics one.
 

I know and agree - Awakened by example in SR may face prejudice, like in Iran. Or an elf or eladrin in the land of the grey orcs tribes in my world, that may not fare well. But again, it's fluff and rping, and should not be exagerated - I have seen sly/jerkass DMs trying this way what they wouldn't directly by plainly saying 'no' to a race. Aka discouraging players to play a race in a  sly way.
We recently played a campaign limited to humans, dwarves, eladrin, elves and haflings.  The choices of race were those in the Heroes of the Fallen Lands.  The other D&D Essential books we used were the Rules Compendium, DM's Kit, the Monster Vault, and (as a later supplement) Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms (which gave the games drow, half-elves, and half-orcs).

The campaign was a nod to 'old-school' D&D.  There were no dragonborn or tieflings.  Sure, D&D presents lots of other options but for those games, we stuck with the stuff that *felt* like it might work in an old-school setting.

= = =

On the flip side, you could develop a campaign that has no classic dwarves, elves or haflings.  Consider a setting where there are humans, dragonborn, tieflings, deva, shifters, minotaurs, wilden, genasi, and changelings. These are all fantasy races of a different flavor.  They're all archtypes for one thing (the dragon man, the devil man, the animal man, the plant man, the elemental man, and the doppleganger).

= = =

The options are out there.  Use as much (or little) of it as you want.  Oh, and I second the idea that Arcan Guyver submits:  I've used the broad catagories of common, uncommon, and rare in my 3.5 hoomebrew.  Common was readily available from the start, uncommon races were races that might (say for instance) appear in 'supplements' and rare races were essentially PC-only races.

In this 3.5 setting the common races were humans, dwarves, elves, half-orcs, and muls; the uncommon races included gnomes and warforged, and there was a rare PC-only race, the Player Handbook-style elf (which I later called eladrin-- in a nod to 4e).
/\ Art
But again, ONLY if both players and DM are okay with it.

And this fall into the same issue - assumating that players characters are 'not special' ina  way, that they should = demography or such folly.
Again, players are special, and there is NOTHING wrong to an all Awakened or Metavariants like Oni (japanese Orcs) Shadowruners in SR, or a party of drow in FR D&D by example. The DM should then also deal with it, and try to make it work - contraints from PLAYERS can also augment creativity. 
But again, ONLY if both players and DM are okay with it.

And this fall into the same issue - assumating that players characters are 'not special' ina  way, that they should = demography or such folly.
Again, players are special, and there is NOTHING wrong to an all Awakened or Metavariants like Oni (japanese Orcs) Shadowruners in SR, or a party of drow in FR D&D by example. The DM should then also deal with it, and try to make it work - contraints from PLAYERS can also augment creativity. 



Pardon for the derail . . . but what's "assumating"?
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
The only thing I would add is that if they are playing an uncommon or rare race, they may have to put something in their backstory to justify their character's presence.

A game I'm in has a party consisting of a Goliath, a Human, a Dwarf, and a Gnome. In Eberron (Khorvaire), so none of those races are implausible. But the campaign is, so far, entirely in Zilargo, where the population is overwhelmingly dominated by Gnomes. WTF is a Goliath doing in a land where ceilings are normally at chest-height? (Yes, we have an explanation, greatly assisted by the fact that we began the campaign at level 6 and already a full year into a search-and-retrieval mission; I also later took advantage of an opportunity to comment vaguely on prior adventures well outside Zilargo.)
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
The only thing I would add is that if they are playing an uncommon or rare race, they may have to put something in their backstory to justify their character's presence.

A game I'm in has a party consisting of a Goliath, a Human, a Dwarf, and a Gnome. In Eberron (Khorvaire), so none of those races are implausible. But the campaign is, so far, entirely in Zilargo, where the population is overwhelmingly dominated by Gnomes. WTF is a Goliath doing in a land where ceilings are normally at chest-height? (Yes, we have an explanation, greatly assisted by the fact that we began the campaign at level 6 and already a full year into a search-and-retrieval mission; I also later took advantage of an opportunity to comment vaguely on prior adventures well outside Zilargo.)

As long it is not demanding the moon.. Goliath? may be a traveling sellsword, or a mercenary. There.
See?

Kalnaur, not a native english speaker, sorry. Assuming? 
I know the game has to expand or people will get bored. But adding all these new races to play drives me crazy. I'm fine with dragonborn two elves type tiefling etc in the book but adding new races all the time Minotaur goblin ogre half demon angel whatever pulls away from core




If I understand you correctly you’re suggesting that WOTC has already published too many races and should not publish any more. Could you please explain to me why you think your desire for fewer options should limit my group? Please take into account the fact that we do not live anywhere near each other and probably will never have the opportunity to play together or interact in any offline manner. I do not understand why your desire for fewer options should affect millions of players throughout the world. I’m all for people getting what they want, however sometimes that requires house ruling because different individuals desires are too divergent. I think this is one of those times.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

There is a nice little self created divide here. Shame there can't be more acceptance instead. I feel that is where the future of the game should be.

All this vitriol, pushing away, retroactive retaliation, and preemptive striking needs to stop.

I keep trying but some won't let things go. Will you?

 

Because you like something, it does not mean it is good. Because you dislike something, it does not mean it is bad. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it everyone's opinion. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it truth. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it the general consensus. Whatever side you want to take, at least remember these things.

Kalnaur, not a native english speaker, sorry. Assuming? 





I'm on an image kick.  Can you tell?

I was just making sure.  It sounded like a combo of assuming and estimating, and thus I wasn't sure if you were making a portmanteau.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
Hell no, I'm not tired of all of the new races! I love finding new ways of incorperating them into my campaign, especially if they fit with my campaign's theme (Norse fantasy)! The same goes with classes, too.
I know the game has to expand or people will get bored. But adding all these new races to play drives me crazy. I'm fine with dragonborn two elves type tiefling etc in the book but adding new races all the time Minotaur goblin ogre half demon angel whatever pulls away from core



Please understand that while many individuals who play this game find do find difficulty handling numerous options, many other individuals who play this game find difficulty with few options. While it's unfortunate that you will have to deal with the frustration of having new races to ignore, or, if you cannot ignore them, to accept grudgingly, your frustration is equal to that which the other players feel, but forbidding or grudgingly accepting a race is far easier than homebrewing on with any sort of balance.

The ounce of discomfort this gives you saves others a dragon's weight of discomfort.
Fire Blog Control, Change, and Chaos: The Elemental Power Source Elemental Heroes Example Classes Xaosmith Exulter Chaos Bringer Director Elemental Heroes: Looking Back - Class and Story Elemental Heroes: Complete Class Beta - The Xaosmith (January 16, 2012) Elemental Heroes: Complete Class Beta - The Harbinger (May 16, 2012) Check out my Elemental Heroes blog series and help me develop four unique elemental classes.
Actually, this is NOT  a good idea.

The heroes, the pcs are SPECIAL. They should not be restricted - and some of those restricted races have also MORE reasons then to be adventurers, if you needed an example.


Well, first off, not all games are kitchen sink, drink from the firehose-type affairs. Some campaigns allow anything, others are more restrictive, and some are incredibly restrictive (ie, someone on these boards was talking about an all-drow campaign recently).

In defense of the grouping system, I think it helps opens some communication between player/DM expectations. If one player wants to play a drow, and another wants to play a goliath, the players and the DM can talk it out and determine what these players want out of their characters. Perhaps the drow is distinctive and rather famous, an inquisitor known as the Shadow of Breland; the character is certainly an outlier, but since he/she is a known quantity in society, it is no longer an outsider (while the savage but curious ex-slave goliath from Xendrik ends up being the actual odd duck of the group).
4e D&D is not a "Tabletop MMO." It is not Massively Multiplayer, and is usually not played Online. Come up with better descriptions of your complaints, cuz this one means jack ****.
Saying race A is uncommon, race B is rare, and so forth is fine.  It's probably expected.  What I don't think you should do is put any kind of restrictions on those races as far as PCs go.  I don't care if I say there are only 5 elves on the face of the planet; if all 5 players want to be one, there's nothing wrong with that.  Hell, there's probably a story in it somewhere.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Actually, this is NOT  a good idea.

The heroes, the pcs are SPECIAL. They should not be restricted - and some of those restricted races have also MORE reasons then to be adventurers, if you needed an example.


Well, first off, not all games are kitchen sink, drink from the firehose-type affairs. Some campaigns allow anything, others are more restrictive, and some are incredibly restrictive (ie, someone on these boards was talking about an all-drow campaign recently).

In defense of the grouping system, I think it helps opens some communication between player/DM expectations. If one player wants to play a drow, and another wants to play a goliath, the players and the DM can talk it out and determine what these players want out of their characters. Perhaps the drow is distinctive and rather famous, an inquisitor known as the Shadow of Breland; the character is certainly an outlier, but since he/she is a known quantity in society, it is no longer an outsider (while the savage but curious ex-slave goliath from Xendrik ends up being the actual odd duck of the group).

That a DM says 'there is n o X in my world', it's okay.
But if a race may exist in your world, like Drow in FR....

I'd rather a dm make a world without X at the base, than block players from playing X.

And this is implying a DM should not try to find a logic way to put race X into his world, but not allow it at all, and not give it a chance - this is for me blocking creativity, a bit sad. Maybe this contraint would add something, a random Great Idea, to his world, no?
Kitchen sinking would be simply not thinking of a place first.

DMs should work with the players, and not always say no outright, UNLESS of course something is unreasonable - like if the players want to do a band of elf out to settle good and justice to their peoples... and lo, one silly fool want to play a Drow. CLERIC OF LOLTH.



Also, Salla's post.
And to add more, even default races BTW can be rare or uncommon - in my setting, tieflings are a spread around diaspora, not very commonly seen nowaday. Dragonborns? They have their own nation, and numbers around in the regions, well, around, but they are not common seen out this large area at all.

Not blocked to players though, nor restricted. I allow good ideas from players. 
(this is a rhetorical responce, and not aimed at you Ubber)

  "I'd rather a dm make a world without X at the base, than block players from playing X."

D&D already does this, and has for years, to one degree or another. goblins/orcs/kobolds exist, and are intelligent humanoid races. why are they blocked from being played ? because they are 'monster races' ? to me, tieflings (et al) are more monstrous than these races. this is the real travesty here.

restricting PC races does nothing but restrict storytelling. if one story doesnt include some races, fine; but to restrict someone else's story is just plain wrong.

if you don't want a game with all the crazy races ... don't use them ! it's much easier to filter out races you don't want, than it would be to make your own race that hasn't been created.
Bane of Gnomes. "An angel of snuggles is a bad match for evil gods." -Mike Mearls (Worlds&Monsters, p.72)
I went over that last post a few times before I realized...

DMs should work with the players, and not always say no outright...


In defense of the grouping system, I think it helps opens some communication between player/DM expectations...



...

I've never actually had to implement a system like this when I run games; my group is pretty much on the same page in this respect. But for someone like the OP who is stressing out about keeping up with all the new races and figuring out where to drop them into their campaign setting, it is a possible starting point. Maybe it was a failed attempt at constructive advice? Meh.
4e D&D is not a "Tabletop MMO." It is not Massively Multiplayer, and is usually not played Online. Come up with better descriptions of your complaints, cuz this one means jack ****.
I think racial restrictions can help to make particular settings feel more distinct. I would never, ever allow someone to play a gnome in a Dark Sun campaign. Once you have gnomes, hamadryads, clerics and paladins running around, it's not Dark Sun anymore as far as I'm concerned. However, D&D is a cooperative game, not an excuse for a DM to go on a dictatorial power-trip. If one player really had his/her heart set on playing a gnome, I would simply not run a Dark Sun campaign. I'd choose a different setting where gnomes are acceptable.

(Yes, this post was triggered by Gallard...)

"My flying carpet is full of elves."

Death to all Gnomes! I, Gallard, will plane-shift to continue my Cleansing War!
Bane of Gnomes. "An angel of snuggles is a bad match for evil gods." -Mike Mearls (Worlds&Monsters, p.72)
I think racial restrictions can help to make particular settings feel more distinct. I would never, ever allow someone to play a gnome in a Dark Sun campaign. Once you have gnomes, hamadryads, clerics and paladins running around, it's not Dark Sun anymore as far as I'm concerned. However, D&D is a cooperative game, not an excuse for a DM to go on a dictatorial power-trip. If one player really had his/her heart set on playing a gnome, I would simply not run a Dark Sun campaign. I'd choose a different setting where gnomes are acceptable.

(Yes, this post was triggered by Gallard...)



How about just using them mechanically, but calling them halflings? Not sure why you'd want to replace the actual halfling mechanically, but still. :P

I like alternatives like refluffing to fit rather than just saying "no". Especially if all the player is interested in about that race are the mechanics, or a particular feature. 
To fix the race overkill and race rarity issue I designed a new campaign setting with my players. I made it very clear from the start: if you want it in the setting, you add it. We used Dawn of Worlds. Now I have a campaign setting with all the races they found important, and they're as common as they found neccesary. Minotaurs are actually one of the most common races in the world alongside Humans.

It also makes sure you have only the key monsters that players find important as major players, and that events head mostly in their desired reaction. Plus, you can play as a DM to put in some adventure hooks.

Worked great. Takes about 8 hours to play through a game, and then you're set to go with your campaign world.
Epic Dungeon Master

Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen!

Your Kingdom awaits!
Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
I think racial restrictions can help to make particular settings feel more distinct. I would never, ever allow someone to play a gnome in a Dark Sun campaign. Once you have gnomes, hamadryads, clerics and paladins running around, it's not Dark Sun anymore as far as I'm concerned. However, D&D is a cooperative game, not an excuse for a DM to go on a dictatorial power-trip. If one player really had his/her heart set on playing a gnome, I would simply not run a Dark Sun campaign. I'd choose a different setting where gnomes are acceptable.

(Yes, this post was triggered by Gallard...)



I could see saying yes to a gnome in Dark Sun.  Provided that he was (A) the last of his kind, (B) really emo about it (I mean "I **** razors I'm so depressed" level emo), and (C) was willing to know that he left the Land Within the Wind on whatever quest he put him or herself on, and that there would be no return to whatever scrap of their homeland they came from.  So whatever quest this character was taking, it better be a doozy, because they're the last of their kind, and there ain't no seafoam deus ex machina gonna bring all the other gnomes back.  So if that one dies, it was the last friggin' gnome in Athas, and GG man, you got it killed.

Yeah, that sounds about right. ;)
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
I think there are situations in which blocking races makes sense.  We only had the original PHB when my wife first started making the world for her upcoming campaign that she is DMing.  So all the races that were chosen were from the PHB.  We later bought the PHB2, because I felt even if for her campaing we can't use the races or classes, the feat selection in just the PHB seemed too restrictive for me.  I really want to play a goliath barbarian, but I'm stuck with my dwarf paladin.  This is fine because first our group could use a defender, and second none of the other players had the race or class available to them.  Basically restricting the races to the races available to all members of the group make sense or else someone will be like I would have made that, but it wasn't an option for me.  Then you end up spending the first campaign day recreating characters or people wishing they would have been allowed to recreate their character because they think the person that had options they didn't has a better character than they have.
How about just using them mechanically, but calling them halflings?



Only in a Middle-Earth campaign for me (halflings/hobbits, I just don't dig in general D&D, same with orcs).
I love the discussion TY.
I love the discussion TY.
I love the discussion TY

D&D already does this, and has for years, to one degree or another. goblins/orcs/kobolds exist, and are intelligent humanoid races. why are they blocked from being played ? because they are 'monster races' ? to me, tieflings (et al) are more monstrous than these races. this is the real travesty here.


A 'monster race' in 4e is basically defined as any race that does not have a well-developed PC write-up, whose members will always be represented by a monster stat block. So, while you may say tieflings are more monstrous than a kobold, it's an excercise in equivocation.

Besides, 4e does allow you to be all of the races you mention. Go ahead, check the back of the Monster Manual. You'll see write-ups for all those "monsters" as PC races. WotC gives you a caveat that they have not been properly balanced against the core races, but it still facilitates using them.

What's lacking? Support. And this is where my complaint with the proliferation of PC races comes in: I'd rather see a few, deep races than many shallow races. I'd like it so that when new racial options are released, my current characters in a long-running campaign can take advantage of them.
New races deva gnome Goliath half Orc shifter Minotaur githzerai shard minds wilden. Huh? New classes barbarian bard Druid invoked shaman sorcerer warden ardent battle mind monk psi on rune priest seeker. I'm sure some of these classes are overlapping and can fit into one but with the needs to make money they need to produce new books to sell so the crazy stuff starts to poke up. We see it in every edition until they stop. And make a new edition and start all over again. Some of the new races just don't make sense Minotaur shifter githzerai. Deva. Might as well make ph 4 and add lich fire giant mind flayer pixie as race. Let's add illusionist faith healer cavelier ninja ronin samurai as classes.
TY from your friendly neighborhood D.A.
Might as well make ph 4 and add lich fire giant mind flayer pixie as race.


Pixie is a race. Heroes of the Feywild.

As DM, I also felt that the game got a bit "race overload", and each adventuring party seemed too much of a monster zoo than a team of fantasy heroes.

My solution. A game world where you have a build race (= RAW race for making your character) and a game world race, mapped from it. It allows players to choose anything in D&D canon, and supports over half of the options as "normal" - players can always opt to be super-special-weird if they want.

Still a work-in-progress, and very fluff-light at the moment, but linked here for interest/feedback: docs.google.com/document/d/1v9-yYYH7EWRl...

Might as well make ph 4 and add lich fire giant mind flayer pixie as race.


Pixie is a race. Heroes of the Feywild.




And Lich is an Epic Destiny.
Epic Dungeon Master

Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen!

Your Kingdom awaits!
Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
New races deva gnome Goliath half Orc shifter Minotaur githzerai shard minds wilden. Huh? New classes barbarian bard Druid invoked shaman sorcerer warden ardent battle mind monk psi on rune priest seeker. I'm sure some of these classes are overlapping and can fit into one but with the needs to make money they need to produce new books to sell so the crazy stuff starts to poke up. We see it in every edition until they stop. And make a new edition and start all over again. Some of the new races just don't make sense Minotaur shifter githzerai. Deva. Might as well make ph 4 and add lich fire giant mind flayer pixie as race. Let's add illusionist faith healer cavelier ninja ronin samurai as classes.



You know what, we should. In our campaign, I play a halfling artificer clockwork engineer with the archlitch destiny, and it it is AWESOME.  I summon clockwork zombies and flying swarms of mechanical acid bats, and his phylactery is a steampunk machine he built to rip his soul out of his body and turn him into a lich.  I love the combination of mad scientist/undead monstrosity thing he's got going on, all counterbalanced by his diminuitive size and happy-go-lucky halfling verve.  He's like, "Hi!  I'm going to rip your soul out of your still-living body and lock it inside a half-living clockwork monstrosity that will serve me for all eternity.  Then we'll have cake!"

If you are playing a kitchen sink game, bizarre race/class/epic destiny/paragon path combinations can spur player creativity.  I would never have thought a tiny undead clockwork maker would be cool, but he so is.  Free your mind.

I'm also a bit confused as to how halflings "make sense" and minotaurs do not.  If you don't like particular races that's fine.  Don't play them.  I will never ever play a pixie.  If they don't fit the kind of story or theme you want, then restrict them.  I've done very focused Tolkienesque high-fantasy games where races were restricted to human/elf/dwarf/halfling/half-elf, extraplanar games where the dominant races were shardminds and warforged, and everything in between.  There's nothing wrong with restricting race and class choices if you're going for a particular fantasy feel or kind of story.  but just because you don't like a given race doesn't mean it doesn't "make sense."  It makes as much sense as you want or need it to.
New races deva gnome Goliath half Orc shifter Minotaur githzerai shard minds wilden. Huh? New classes barbarian bard Druid invoked shaman sorcerer warden ardent battle mind monk psi on rune priest seeker. I'm sure some of these classes are overlapping and can fit into one but with the needs to make money they need to produce new books to sell so the crazy stuff starts to poke up. We see it in every edition until they stop. And make a new edition and start all over again. Some of the new races just don't make sense Minotaur shifter githzerai. Deva. Might as well make ph 4 and add lich fire giant mind flayer pixie as race. Let's add illusionist faith healer cavelier ninja ronin samurai as classes. TY from your friendly neighborhood D.A.

First, punctuation is your friend and mine.  Please use it.

Second, I'm wondering what your problem is with simply ignoring races you don't like, or placing story-focused restrictions on the campaign. Given the choice between WotC publishing only a handful of races and classes and publishing everything that occurs to them, I'd gladly take the latter: I'd rather have more options than fewer, even if I end up ruling some of them out because the flavor doesn't fit.

Finally, githzerai come from the 1981 edition of the Fiend Folio; claiming that they don't make sense in the game is... a little bit strange considering their pedigree.  As pointed out upthread, lich and pixie are both already player elements.  So are illusionist, cavalier, ninja, and samurai (which explicitly admits the existence of ronin). Apparently you're not playing with those things, and that's fine--but again, what's the problem with simply continuing not to play with them, rather than resenting their existence?