Quote from: Shipyard Locked;736875But you do recognize that it can feel a little redundant with the themes of some of the other races?

Also, the modern fantasy notion of elves doesn't match many classic folk interpretations of elves, but I would argue the modern one is more generally iconic and useful.

That concept, of themes, really does not even register with my way of thinking.  It feels like saying Bellorussia should not exist because Russia already has that theme.  Makes no sense to my way of thinking.

Quote from: Old One Eye;737551That concept, of themes, really does not even register with my way of thinking.  It feels like saying Bellorussia should not exist because Russia already has that theme.  Makes no sense to my way of thinking.

Or for that matter, that kobolds should not exist because there are already goblins, hobgoblins and gnolls should not exist because there are already orcs, trolls and bugbears should not exist because there are already ogres, troglodytes should not exist because there are already lizardfolk... I can keep going if you want. Why not, I say, if you want both there's no reason not to have both.

Quote from: LibraryLass;737581Or for that matter, that kobolds should not exist because there are already goblins, hobgoblins and gnolls should not exist because there are already orcs, trolls and bugbears should not exist because there are already ogres, troglodytes should not exist because there are already lizardfolk... I can keep going if you want. Why not, I say, if you want both there's no reason not to have both.

Problem is though you end up with a lot of shit that is mostly blandly the same.
This is especially true if we don't have ecology background and culture just statblocks.

I much prefer a toolbox to build races and some archetypes built from the tool kit as opposed to 30 playable races and 10,000 monsters.
but I also like races and classes to be setting specific because it shows some imagination and thought on behalf of the GM.

Quote from: jibbajibba;737627Problem is though you end up with a lot of shit that is mostly blandly the same.

Right, and in my personal experience this is most problematic for player races since the game often offers too many choices already without gumming up the works with options that aren't meaningfully distinct from each other.

I'm not saying the pre-4e / non-tinker gnome is a serious problem or anything. Just that at my table it rarely got used, and when someone did use it no meaningfully distinct roleplaying came out of it, so it felt like a waste of pages and world space.

QuoteIt feels like saying Bellorussia should not exist because Russia already has that theme.

The real world is famous for being very poorly designed, full of bland and confusing redundancy.

QuoteOr for that matter, that kobolds should not exist because there are already goblins, hobgoblins and gnolls should not exist because there are already orcs, trolls and bugbears should not exist because there are already ogres, troglodytes should not exist because there are already lizardfolk... I can keep going if you want. Why not, I say, if you want both there's no reason not to have both.

I actually do think the game is cluttered with humanoids and some of them need to be more distinct to justify their pages.

Gnolls and orcs do occupy the same design space and don't feel different enough in play, so I rarely use both in a setting or adventure. Hobgoblins have a more disciplined, militaristic theme than orcs so I sometimes include them but they could still benfit from a little more distinction (4e did a good job I think). Goblins and kobolds are pretty close, but it helps that goblins are more in-your-face and back-stabby while kobolds have the trap focus and (post 3e) dragon/sorcery theme. Troglodytes have a solid mechanical distinction from lizardfolk.

The way I handled humanoid overlap in my 4E game was to posit that each terrain had its own large humanoid species and its own little humanoid species. So plains got humans and halflings, forests got elves and gnomes, mountains got goliaths and dwarves, swamps got hobgoblins and goblins, and deserts got dragonborn and kobolds. And then I ruthlessly cut out all the other species.

Quote from: Maltese Changeling;737673The way I handled humanoid overlap in my 4E game was to posit that each terrain had its own large humanoid species and its own little own humanoid species. So plains got humans and halflings, forests got elves and gnomes, mountains got goliaths and dwarves, swamps got hobgoblins and goblins, and deserts got dragonborn and kobolds. And then I ruthlessly cut out all the other species.

That's cool.

I prefer human-centric settings, but if other races are allowed, I'll pretty much let in the whole Star Wars cantina - so long as the various options are reasonably balanced.

Actually, I did like the Gnoll race, which was a DDI exclusive IIRC.

Quote from: Maltese Changeling;737673The way I handled humanoid overlap in my 4E game was to posit that each terrain had its own large humanoid species and its own little humanoid species. So plains got humans and halflings, forests got elves and gnomes, mountains got goliaths and dwarves, swamps got hobgoblins and goblins, and deserts got dragonborn and kobolds. And then I ruthlessly cut out all the other species.

Huh, I like it.

Quote from: Saplatt;737814Actually, I did like the Gnoll race, which was a DDI exclusive IIRC.

I'm pretty sure it was also in the monsters as NPCs section at the back of the monster manual.

Quote from: Saplatt;737814Actually, I did like the Gnoll race, which was a DDI exclusive IIRC.

Complete book of Humanoids added Gnolls as a PC race.

Red Steel added a stable race of effectively Half-Gnolls as a PC race I believe.

Quote from: Omega;738201Complete book of Humanoids added Gnolls as a PC race.

Red Steel added a stable race of effectively Half-Gnolls as a PC race I believe.

In 4e, though.