Quote from: S'mon;1071970Well I'm running Primeval Thule tomorrow, the Uncommon races don't exist in that setting. But it does have the Common ones.

Just as a point though... which races are common vs. uncommon is VERY setting dependent.

In my setting humans, dwarves (who are all arcane cyborgs due to progressive organ failure resulting from the haphazard way their species was created by the demons), malfeans (elemental tieflings; brine, dust, ember, miasma, etc.; and descendants of said demons) and beastmen (magically created true-breeding man/beast hybrids originally created for slave labor until their won their freedom in a revolution against mankind) would be the common races of the setting. Meanwhile, elves would be are uncommon latecomers to the world (also the lawful evil antagonists/evil empire of the setting; PCs are defectors from decadence) and halflings don't exist at all (gnomes do, but they're the embodied dreams of children who live in the wilds like Peter Pan and the Lost Boys).

I'm of the mind that, unless you're playing something in the Tolkien-verse (or a pre-gen derivative), then human/elf/dwarf/halfling should NOT be your common races (and if they are, then they should not be just like the Tolkien versions of same). At least TRY to be original with your homebrew worlds. Hell, human only is more interesting than Tolkien Ripoff #5872.

And with that said, it also needs to be stated that PC's aren't Common Anything. A first level fighter is already a veteran. Clerics and magic-users can work magic. They take risks no sane person would dare in pursuit of their goals. If one of these rare individuals happens to be a demigod (ex. Hercules) or a talking lion (ex. Azlan) or a robot/golem (ex. R2-D2)... so what? Adventurers don't exist in the world the same way that ordinary people do; why should they be limited to what is common for normal people?

Quote from: S'mon;1071979I would guess most GMs allow everything in the PHB (not sure about multiclassing, but I expect so), but that OTOH most players are not entitled douchebags, and are happy to play with restrictions. A guy wanted to play a Tortle in my Primeval Thule game, but did not complain when I said no - he was just happy to play!

Seconded most if not almost  players are very understanding if a DM refuses a certain class, feat race etc. As long as the DM is not acting like a douche when he refuses.

Quote from: S'mon;1071979In general I think the kind of bad attitudes (of various types) which you see on some forums is not at all typical of most players, or most GMs.

If anything imo a rare occurrence. Most players cab and will understand A DM who refuses to allow something a player at the table. It's only on forums where apparently they are so common that the entire hobby is in peril and jeapordy.

Quote from: Chris24601;1071981Just as a point though... which races are common vs. uncommon is VERY setting dependent.

Common & Uncommon races are defined terms in 5e D&D, each with their own section in the PHB.

Quote from: sureshot;1071982It's only on forums where apparently they are so common that the entire hobby is in peril and jeapordy.

Partly it's the nature of the Internet as a medium; also there are a few people who are douchebags and so no one will play with them, so they spend their time on the Internet instead, being douchey.

Quote from: jaeger;1071918outside of forums like this; rare is the gm that will even think of putting his foot down on a corebook race.

ding ding ding!

Quote from: S'mon;1071984Common & Uncommon races are defined terms in 5e D&D, each with their own section in the PHB.

No, they're not. I'm looking right at the 5e PHB.

Other than putting dwarves, elves, halflings and humans out of alphabetical order, there's no division in the race section at all. Dragonborn come right after humans with special notation and are even ahead of gnomes, half-elves and half-orcs in the race section.

There's a bit of fluff on what is considered common and uncommon in the default setting (Forgotten Realms in this case), at the start of the races section, stating what is common to the default world, but it does not claim that that these distributions apply across every setting regardless of the individual GM's decisions.

There is no mechanic stating that X% of the PCs must be of a common species. It just says these species are less common in the general population, not that they're non-existent or even rare.

And even if this was a hard and fast mechanic, it just means the people who wrote the book are missing the point as badly as you did... that Common and Uncommon ARE setting dependent regardless of what the rules say because any other interpretation is incompatible with reality.

The rules can say halflings are common as dirt, but if no halflings exist in the setting you're playing in then they aren't common there and you don't get play one. If the setting says Tieflings make up a third of the population, they're common in that setting and should be readily available as PCs regardless of what the default setting rules say.

Quote from: Chris24601;1071998No, they're not. I'm looking right at the 5e PHB.

Other than putting dwarves, elves, halflings and humans out of alphabetical order, there's no division in the race section at all. Dragonborn come right after humans with special notation and are even ahead of gnomes, half-elves and half-orcs in the race section.

There's a bit of fluff on what is considered common and uncommon in the default setting (Forgotten Realms in this case), at the start of the races section, stating what is common to the default world, but it does not claim that that these distributions apply across every setting regardless of the individual GM's decisions.

You are a strange fellow.

The races that come after Human are the Uncommon races - Dragonborn Gnome Half-Elf Half-Orc & Tiefling. That is why they are out of alphabetical order with Dwarf Elf Halfling & Human up front.

Yes, Uncommon means "Uncommon by default", not "YOU MUST MAKE THESE RACES RARE IN YOUR SETTING!"

The actual text in the first column of the PHB Races section talks about Common vs Uncommon races. It does not refer to the Forgotten Realms AFAICs. It sets a baseline which obviously a DM can alter.

In the Left Corner..........

"Scattered among the members of these more common races are the true exotics..." then goes on to describe a Dragonborn, a tiefling, etc.

Its the second paragraph of the Races chapter, lol.

Quote from: kythri;1071992ding ding ding!

Indeed. I slammed my foot down pretty hard, my world has humans, dwarves, elves, halflings, and half-goblins (reskinned orcs). Anddddddd...that's it. That's more than enough to min/max with.

Quote from: Doom;1072037Indeed. I slammed my foot down pretty hard, my world has humans, dwarves, elves, halflings, and half-goblins (reskinned orcs). Anddddddd...that's it. That's more than enough to min/max with.

Greetings!

Exactly, Doom. You must exercise a firm hand as DM in determining what races in your world are appropriate for PC's and what races aren't. Yes, we all know that the PHB provides some measure of lip service to this, in theory--but in reality, we all know how most players and even DM's approach the matter, which tends to be very casual, and embracing "The Kitchen Sink" approach.

I may grudgingly allow "Tieflings" in my campaigns--as I wrote them up as Khambar--though through text, mutations, and other such "cultural baggage" a player must have a very focused vision in mind for playing a Tiefling, because doing so is *not* like playing a more acceptable character race. I admit it. I'm prejudiced, xenophobic, and bigoted towards Tiefling nonsense. They are a race that is half human, and half demon! Yeah, as a player, you better bring your "A-Game" because Tieflings in my campaign, don't have a high life expectancy beyond the camps and borders of savage kingdoms. Tieflings routinely get hunted down, tortured, and burned at the stake. Hell, even in "savage and barbarian" cultures and kingdoms, what with lots of zealous loyalty to tribal gods, a hatred of demonic evil, evil spirits, and so on--even there, Tieflings are also hunted down, and brutally slaughtered. *shrugs* Tieflings, to my mind, in any kind of normalized human setting, whether civilized or barbarian--don't fare well. I have a hard time even contemplating a Disneyesque, "Seattle-Starbucks" campaign world where all of these different races all just giggle and love each other...because. You know?

This same kind of "Seattle" attitude permeates the game, and I think if a DM isn't careful, then the campaign can very much slide into being a Disney-Seattle cesspool of irrationality. It is very important for the DM to think and consider these things, unless the DM intentionally wants to embrace a crazy, "Gonzo style" campaign. Depending on the miliue of your world, there may be many races that don't fit as PC options.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1072043This same kind of "Seattle" attitude permeates the game, and I think if a DM isn't careful, then the campaign can very much slide into being a Disney-Seattle cesspool of irrationality. It is very important for the DM to think and consider these things, unless the DM intentionally wants to embrace a crazy, "Gonzo style" campaign. Depending on the miliue of your world, there may be many races that don't fit as PC options.

I feel people don't actually read the DMG, not like an actual book anyways. In the Introduction to the Dungeon Master, page 4, it's the very first paragon in Part 1: Master of Worlds. "Every DM is the creator of his or her own campaign world. Whether you invent a world, adapt a world from a favorite movie or novel, or use a published setting for the D&D game, you make that world your own over the course of a campaign." I mean this pretty much tells the DM to "Hey, make the world as you see fit because it's yours." I don't think I've ever read any D&D book that says "Yea you must include Race X, Y, or Z in your game."

In fact I actually love ALL the different options for players. For one, I look at it like a buffet. No one wants to walk up to a buffet with only 3 meals present. If I have more variety then I can tailor my campaign for more things. I think more options makes for a better DM because they have to be consistent with their ideals and beliefs for their campaign. This is exactly why I hate alignment mechanics as a core aspect of rules. If a DM wants to enforce a strict alignment code for the Paladin then it's his onus to do so, no some game designer.

For example, in 4th Edition the Bladesinger class (Neverwinter Campaign Setting) doesn't require the character to be a specific race. There can be Tiefling Bladesingers, Drow Bladesingers, Human Bladesingers, etc. To me, this runs counter to the concept of the class with the campaign Forgotten Realms where an elf will train one other in the ways of Bladesinging. So I told my players "hey, if you want to be a Bladesinger, you have to be an elf, half-elf, or eladrin to be that class. It's more than just a collection of mechanics, it's rooted in a whole race's fundamental society." And they were good with it. My friend initially wanted to be a human Bladesinger but upon hearing that, decided to go Human Swordmage who attempted to learn bladesong but was turned away and instead learned a sort of "bastardized" version (hence it's similar in style but decidedly different).

To go a different way, WotC just released a book titled Guildmasters' Guide to Ravnica. I have loved the Ravnica setting for Magic: The Gathering since it came out in 2006 or 2007 (I can't remember which) and it actually got me back into playing Magic again. So when they decided to put out the book, I was thrilled. In this setting, Loxodon (elephant-like creatures), Minotaurs, Goblins, Vampires, Ghosts, Humans, Elves, Giants, Demons and Tieflings, etc. ALL have some concept within the setting. So for me, these options should be available to players if I want to run a campaign with this backdrop. Had the designers kept the options to Tolkien-esque Only in the PHB, it would be much harder on my part to come up with mechanics to fulfill all these ideas.

So I say bring on the options and I'll sort them out accordingly.

I realized I didn't answer the question to the thread.

The one thing I'd do to 5e to make it better, a chart for buying magic weapons and distribution charts for DMs to give out magic items. I mean it's 100% up to the DM as to what and when they're given but some suggestions can't hurt. Coming from playing the past 3 editions, purchasing magic items in large towns and cities was common-place and now suddenly they're not. I could walk into a shop in Waterdeep and expect to buy at least a +1 weapon.

Dominion rules should never have been left out IMO. It was a big part of 2nd to show how your character became established.

Quote from: Batman;1072071I realized I didn't answer the question to the thread.

The one thing I'd do to 5e to make it better, a chart for buying magic weapons and distribution charts for DMs to give out magic items. I mean it's 100% up to the DM as to what and when they're given but some suggestions can't hurt. Coming from playing the past 3 editions, purchasing magic items in large towns and cities was common-place and now suddenly they're not. I could walk into a shop in Waterdeep and expect to buy at least a +1 weapon.

Yeah, I noticed that yesterday. The module says "3 potions, a ring, and a scroll"...but there's no chart for rolling up potions. Or rings. Or scroll. I whipped out my AD&D book, but it really seems like this is an idea that shouldn't have been forgotten.

And putting the damn equipment charts in the back so you don't have to flip through the PHB every time the players find a piece of armor or weapon would have been nice, too....