Is anyone else tired of all the batshit crazy races in neo-d&d?

>What was wrong with Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfing, Gnome, Half-Elf and Half-Orc?
Holy shit, he's now accepting gnomes, half-elves, and half-orcs.

You're improving, bit by bit!

I only play Dwarves and Half-Orcs. Always a Fighter or Barbarian.

I know there are people out there who will be triggered by this.

i'm not triggered by it but you are clearly either uninspired, autistic, or afraid of trying new things.

probably all three. i would hate to be in your group.

>"i'm not triggered by it"
>proceeds to list reasons why he is triggered

suuuure

and when you were in middle school and the counselor told your parents that you had aspergers i'm sure that was also simply because they were "triggered"

>he's so triggered he can't stop telling me how "not triggered" he is

>I only play Dwarves and Half-Orcs. Always a Fighter or Barbarian.

i could keep pointing out how autistic you are but there is nothing i can say that will top your own post

If it's what you enjoy, go for it. The lack of variety seems like it could get a little stale after a while, but to each their own.

You don't like teifling anal fetishists?

>doesn't even deny he's triggered now, simply tries to claim he's less autistic than me

I mean, I'm as triggered as any regular person would be. Which is enough that you'd probably be my least favorite member of our gaming group, like the guy I know IRL who does this.

Actually, as a correction, I'm mainly just projecting my feelings about the real guy onto you. I would hope your characters aren't all just stupid lugs who go "Dar me smash" at every oppurtunity for actual role playing.

I guess it's a good thing that I don't game with people who are soft cunts that get their panties in a twist over something as stupid as someone playing what they enjoy.

>like the guy I know IRL who does this
Please provide examples of his roleplaying skill for assessment.

It's less about what you enjoy and more about the kind of people that enjoy those things.

Go on.

Perhaps you should tell us more.

I mean, he did

Wasn't 3.5 the one that introduced all the stupid races like Xephs and Maenads and Elan?

>Wasn't 3.5 the one that introduced all the stupid races like Xephs and Maenads and Elan?

Yes and no. 3e introduced a lot of races, but it was really 2e and all its settings that started down the path. Planescape introduced Genasi, Tieflings, Aasimar and other planetouched. Darksun had Aakocra, Thri-Kreen, Mul, and Half-Giants. And then a whole bunch of weirdness that was Spelljammer.

No, he should put on the Fate/Zero soundtrack and weave us a fucking tale.

Tell us about how Iskendar fits into it too.

You sound like the most boring DM ever.

>NO FUN! YOU'LL PLAY AS THE CHARACTERS I WANT YOU TO PLAY AS!

>Is anyone else tired of all the batshit crazy races in neo-d&d?

Despite OP being bait. Yes I am tired of some of the less conventional races & classes. I think I have a different idea of what D&D is than many other people do. The occasional guy wanting to be a centaur or something is fine, but I feel like the more options there are the further D&D moves away from archetypes on an archetypal quest. When half the party are strange creatures that are half monstrous themselves it can hamper the feeling of traveling into the strange unknown. Classes are a different problem. Each class should map to a distinct archetype, but things like Warlock, and Sorcerer step thematically on the Wizard's (Magic-User's) toes. Paladins are redundant when you already have the militant-holy-man covered with the Cleric. Same with the Barbarian and the Fighter. Barbarian, Druid, and Ranger also have the problem of domesticating wilderness which I think take a lot from the climate of the venture into the unknown..

I saw an argument that in AD&D everybody should have played a Thief because the Thief Skills made you better at things that every character does while on an adventure. I feel like some options are born from people finding something they like as part of the adventure then making a character type that revolves around that one thing. When the Wizard summons a monstrosity to get knowledge out of it it's cool, so let's make a class that just entreats with horrible things as their thing. It's cool when the party follows the tracks of the monsters through the wilderness, so let's make a class that is built around tracking things though the wilderness. The problem is that is you atomize roles too far you end up with situations that are associated primarily with one class, so when the tracking needs to be done everybody stand around picking their nose waiting for the Ranger to find the way.

That's not what D&D is about. D&D is about going into a cave and getting loadsa money.

That deluge really starts in 2e. The way 3e codified things made it easier to compose, but the desire by players and content creators to spin out to the obscure was already well established.

Even in the mostly-harmless, almost-core 2e stuff. I mean, who the fuck needs stats for Gully Dwarves?

>all of those classes in the first paragraph

Each of them does something related to X. That does not make them samey or even remotely close to eachother. Even the difference between a fighter and a barbarian can be huge.

For example you pointed to sorc and wiz (in 3.5, at least) as being nearly the same, but the ways in which they function are entirely opposite, only being the same in that they cast magic. Warlocks are even further from that, being less of a magic caster entirely and more choosing from a limited list of effects.

you said druid, ranger, and barbarian all have the same thing of being more "wild" but the approach for each is keenly different.

Its easy to say the fluff reason makes them similar, but if they are mechanically different and this affects the fluff, then your overall argument is moot.

I completely agree. Having dragon people as a core race is fucking stupid. I just limit races depending on the setting.

Daily reminder that dragonborn would have been fine if 5e used race as class

How about a reminder that no matter how bad 4e/5e dragonborn may seem, they will never be as bad as the 3.5 dragonborn?

Just say you run an alternate campaign setting. Done. Make it human only, or human-centric.

...

If a race in the setting is established to be sapient then why shouldn't I be able to play as it?

Honestly, the thing that irks about the PC races in D&D is not that they're "crazy" it's that they're too similar.

I made a thread about this a few days ago.

I wish we could just have one little race (dwarves), one pretty race (elves) and one big tough race (half-orcs).

I really wish they would stop making things like Tieflings core since they're half planar beings and only fit into very specific settings. Same with Dragonborn.

>some sort of scalie shit they insisted was a genuine race in the player's handbook

Because it is...? It's in the 5e PHB. It is, in a modicum of your defense, marked as an uncommon race that the DM is free to disallow, but nevertheless dragonborn are in the PHB, right in the "Races" chapter.

>Should I allow this shit?

That's between you and your God, but for my part - yes. Because I'm not going to disallow someone's character based on the character's race, so long as they've built an actual character and not merely a collection of statistics with a name.

Dragonborn have been an established part of D&D for about 10 years now - only a year shorter than the printing life of AD&D 2nd Edition (1989 to 2000).

Disallowing a character based solely on racial choice strikes me as being...immature, at least if you don't outline ahead of time that certain racial options in the PHB won't be allowed in your personal setting. Or are you running in an established world like Faerûn, which has Dragonborn in it? If so, your players are not at fault for thinking that Dragonborn would be allowed as per the established standard.

From the sound of things, you didn't even know that Dragonborn were in the 5e PHB. Which suggests to me that you haven't read it...which suggests to me that you're either bad at DMing or new at it.

As a DM you're expected to have read the PHB just as thoroughly as the players, and I find it difficult to believe that a DM who has done so wouldn't know that Dragonborn were a core racial option.

>since they're half planar beings

No, they're not. That's cambions. Tieflings are those who have some fiendish ancestry in their blood that manifests strongly, but even in Planescape that relation could be as recent as a grandfather/mother to as distant as nine or ten generations, or more. And properly speaking it might not even be a direct relative. Simply having had a lot of dealings with fiends, contracts and such, could result in tieflings.

In 4th Edition's default settng, tieflings were the result of basically an entire human kingdom signing a contract with Asmodeus that turned them all into tieflings, who where thenceforward a distinct race that breeds true - no carnal relations with fiends were necessary.

Oh, and try and remember that 4th Edition's explanation for tieflings was put forth in 2007, was not directly recanted by 5e, and thereby comprises about a quarter of D&D's total publishing life.

>What was wrong with Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfing, Gnome, Half-Elf and Half-Orc?
Demihumans are boring, overdone and cliched.

It should be just humans and rare fetish races like tieflings and dragonborn.

Always Chaotic Evil

I would prefer a player come to me with a lizardfolk shaman.

Such a race wouldn't really be sapient, would they? If they couldn't ever be anything but Chaotic and Evil.

>Such a race wouldn't really be sapient, would they? If they couldn't ever be anything but Chaotic and Evil.
Welcome to Earth.

As long as they have distinct personalities i dont care if every single character is a non-variant human champion fighter.

Not defending OP, as he's going about this all wrong, but disallowing races is totally fine, if the setting you're playing in doesn't have the race in it.

I find that my players get excited about new and unusual options. If I bring them a homebrew setting and it has mushroom people with an electric discharge attack, there will undoubtedly be one or two in the party.

pt. 2
Furthermore, god help you if you step on somebodies toes when it comes to their one thing. If you want to sour an evening have the Wizard or Fighter find the tracks of the monster instead of the Ranger. If you are playing a character that has one thing they are good at, and you get upstaged doing that one thing too often that can really sour a person to a game. Don't forget that D&D is a social game, so if you piss off your interpersonal linchpin the whole group can fall apart quickly. I know I've had it happen where a player in the group has a character that is made for X, we meant to do more X, we never get around to X, and the game dies by either fire or ice because of that.
Fighters, Wizards, Clerics, and (kinda) Rogues are robust enough as ideas that they can't be shut down so easily, and it's hard to put them into a situation where they don't get to exercise their talents (unless you're trying to do just that.)

>That's not what D&D is about. D&D is about going into a cave and getting loadsa money.

I think you might be saying that ironically, but you're absolutely right that is the story that D&D is built around. Go into the scary place, and bring back the treasure.

>Its easy to say the fluff reason makes them similar, but if they are mechanically different and this affects the fluff, then your overall argument is moot.

I'm saying that the fluff overlaps absolutely matter, maybe more than the mechanical differences. The stories that can be developed from the basic idea of a Wizard are richer than the stories that be developed from a Warlock, or Sorcerer. Also the stories that be developed from a Sorcerer or Warlock can developed as well or better through a different character archetype. The wilderness classes aren't a problem mechanically. They are a problem thematically for D&D because they are too comfortable outside of civilization. All the exotic races are an issue because they normalize the fantastic.

Oh, for sure, I prefer building my worlds from the ground up, but not everyone does. Im just saying banning races from your homebrew whether for plot reasons or because they dont exist, is totally reasonable.

I Hate Character Limits

As I said I think I have a different idea of D&D is supposed to be than most people I see talk about it. That's mostly from playing my first campaigns with folklorists, and theologians. I'm not trying to say that people shouldn't play all the strange options that are available. I'm just personally burnt out on parties where everybody is an innate spell casting half-something, and the parties never coalesce into a functioning group because they all have a built in conflicting agendas from their class.

Not user, but i do try and make sense of a world with the PCs in it. I do like continuity. My favorite campaign i've ever done was all "elves" from space. It was cool to try and watch them fit into a world that wasn't theirs. It only worked because of the continuity of the world. It's a balancing act that is at it's best when the players and the DM are communicating.

I fucking loved that Space elf campaign. Whole party trying real hard to not be a bunch of murder hobos.

When i'm playing a character i really tend towards fighter/barb/cleric/pally. I do play other things but it's just what i enjoy playing. As for you, i think as long as you're still adding something worthwhile to a party then you're fine. If there's no healer or dedicated spell caster then it's good to get out of your comfort zone user.

Actually we didn't. We may have had it in the past, but I lurked like a hoodrat yesterday and there was no thread like unto this.

The halfling and Elf are watching the Gnome jerk off the half-Orc's magic cock.

Sure, but you get the point: humans, monsters, semi-humans but not demihumans.

This concept should die in fire

Judging by kobold threads, introducing any lizard-like race is a mistake.

Didn't stop Gnolls from being playable in 4e.

What? I'm not doing this out of any dislike of magical realming. I just think demihumans are overused and cliched.

there needs to be some kind of women who are essentially humans but with a crazy skintone, like purple or something. Whether a different race, an alien species, or a type of sorcerer, it needs to happen.

What if we make fantasy races all based on templates from Master Of Orion?

in b4 Endless Legend

I'll bring an electric hedgehog PC to your next game, then

Or a Kender
Or a pony

It's ~creative~

Just because you're CE doesn't mean you HAVE to be a dickass.

I'm pretty sure that it does. Technically.

That mushroom is masturbating right in front of me, staring into my soul.

This desu

>Everyone that disagrees with me is a troll

You must lead a very sad life.

>user has a type of character he likes
>WOW YOU MUST BE AUTISTIC OR AFRAID OF NEW THINGS

The fact that you non-ironically think that is a legit opinion to have shows that no, you are the one with autism. Please leave Veeky Forums forever.

>i could keep pointing out how autistic you are but there is nothing i can say that will top your own post
But your very own retardation overshadows anything he could say, you mongoloid.

Liking an archetype =/= "only ever playing" one archetype

I feel that the reason why human centric settings are better than others is simply that because for some reason all the other races have strict culture and habits which are set in stone
You can't do much with races which should always be evil or good

>Elf
Mary sue
>Dwarf
Mary sue
>Halfing
Mary sue
>Gnome
Oh man this is Mary sue
>Half-Elf
Mary sue
> Half-Orc
Mary sue

Anything that isn't a human is mary sue bullshit, there's literally no difference between Dwaft and half minotaur, half angel, half demon with hazel eyes and raven black hair

>I feel that the reason why human centric settings are better than others is simply that because for some reason all the other races have strict culture and habits which are set in stone

This is honestly the best way to do it. Non-human races aren't human, they shouldn't have same drives and diversity as humans.

If you can tell two elves apart, they're shit elves, nothing more than humans with pointy ears.

>Been playing humans all my life
>Pick non human race
>"Oh look at this fagget and his special snowflake, always making special snowflakes!"
>Their face when I asked when was the last time I played a non human or a special snowflake
The antis (anti weeb, anti non humans, etc) have become so retarded and have infected more than half the hobby, they only spout memes without even thinking what they're saying or if it's even truth

To be honest it's pretty evident that the "non human = mary sue" guy is literally just one guy posting seriously and a bunch of people riding his coattails as a meme at this point.

Why wouldn't you play what you like at every opportunity? What are you, some kind of self-cuck?

> if the setting you're playing in doesn't have the race in it.

Sure, but OP doesn't make me think that he did that. Instead it seems like he tried to start up a 5e game (with no stated restrictions) and then got bitchy when some of his players made 5e characters of a race he didn't like, despite not banning them to start with.

And, again, he seems to be unaware that Dragonbron are in the 5e PHB (to quote, "some sort of scalie shit they insisted was a genuine race in the player's handbook"). A DM who is not aware of the content of the PHB, is not a very good DM.

I'm not saying that the DM has to have every single rule memorized, but he should still be aware that 5e has Dragonborn in it, particularly if he irrationally hates them so much that he wants to ban them.

What kind of critter is that one in your pic?

It's a dragonoid from Dark Souls. Pic related is how they look in-game.

>I really wish they would stop making things like Tieflings core since they're half planar beings and only fit into very specific settings. Same with Dragonborn.

Demonic ancestry and Dragonfolk aren't that strange in fantasy. Dragonfolk in particular seem almost a given in D&D, which- aside from being titled Dungeons and DRAGONS and having all kinds of other animal people, also consistently reminds us that its Dragons enjoy turning into people and and cavorting with them on a regular basis.

Honestly, Aasimar and Genasi should be in the PHB too as fantasy stories about people with divine ancestry or innate affinity for the elements are particularly common as well.

And given that Tieflings/Aasimar/Genasi are all humans at base, I find them more relatable and easier to justify than Halflings/Orcs/Elves/Dwarves which end up having to be more human to be relatable.

>Demonic ancestry
Are we talking full on post-WWII demon rape train, where an entire generation come out of the womb in tracksuits? Because how the hell do you get so many Tieflings that they become a core race, and so ubiquitous that nobody wants to purge or lynch them?

>Because how the hell do you get so many Tieflings that they become a core race, and so ubiquitous that nobody wants to purge or lynch them?

Being in the PHB doesn't mean you're everywhere and crawling out of the woodwork. It's for PCs.

>All non typical races are batshit crazy
Sorry you're so triggered by people having an imagination. It must make it hard to play DND.

Personally, as a DM, I don't care what race the players pick or invent, I draw the line at the abilities. If someone wants to invent a race, put in the work to imagine a culture that works within the world as I've designed, I'll generally make the reciprocal effort to put it in the setting. If they want to hack in imbalanced powers, I tell them to fuck off.

So if someone says "i want to be a Bird man race, like the Kenku." and then explains how they live in treefort-esque tribes, are generally considered barbarians and are fairly low-tech and territorial, then I say cool, and add that to one or two of the forests.

If they say "I want to be able to fly" I just say no.

0/10, you didnt even try

That dwarf looks smooth as fuck.

What about glide? A permanent feather fall effect, basically.

That looks stupid as fuck

I mostly agree, OP.

"Dragonborn" is a stupid name a 12-year-old would come up with. Lizardmen should simply be a playable race, and not be descended from dragons.

Half-Orcs should just be Orcs, and be like Warcraft Orcs (basically Klingons). The mindless, chaotic evil Orcs can be NPCs.

>Honestly, having gnomes as well as halfings
They're entirely different races though. Gnomes are smart, halflings are stupid shits.

Tieflings are edgy 12 year old anime trash too, but playing a half-demon rape baby can still be interesting. I wouldn't make them a core player race, though.

Genasi are FUCKING RETARDED, uninspired LAME shit. Delete entirely.

Other retarded race options that should be deleted include golems(warforged), shifters, etc.

>i'm not triggered by it but you are clearly either uninspired, autistic, or afraid of trying new things.
Nah, that's just you making retarded assumptions from too little information.

>Liking an archetype =/= "only ever playing" one archetype
Nothing wrong with either.

>NO FUN ALLOWED: THE POST

>Lizardmen should simply be a playable race, and not be descended from dragons.

Lizardfolk have an entirely different culture and feel to them than dragonborn, however.

>post-WWII demon rape train
What the fuck are you talking about, Helga?

dont be a cuck with your anti-human propoganda.

orcs are not that big and neither are dwarves

any race more than just humans is too much.