Quote from: Spinachcat;535189I am happy for WotC to tell me what races/classes are common, uncommon, rare in a particular setting...but not in the core books.

Only the GM decides what's rare or common in their setting.

THIS.

The GM needs to be the one with the final say on what races exist in his campaign and how common they are in his setting. IMHO, it doesn't even make sense to divide races into common/uncommon/rare in a setting-neutral set of rules. I realize that this make it harder for a company to sell splat books if not all campaigns use all the races (or all the rules) but that's just tough.

Ever race tats ever been in a PHB1 needs to be in the core, in the same way that every class does, otherwise it is just going to be a colossal waste of time.

A lot of people think playing a Dragonborn Paladin is D&D, and those people deserve just as much support as people who want Halfling Burglars or Human Fighting Men.

Quote from: jadrax;535241Ever race tats ever been in a PHB1 needs to be in the core, in the same way that every class does, otherwise it is just going to be a colossal waste of time.

A lot of people think playing a Dragonborn Paladin is D&D, and those people deserve just as much support as people who want Halfling Burglars or Human Fighting Men.

I agree in principle with one strong proviso. The race section of the PHB needs to clearly and bluntly state something like this at the beginning:

QuoteWarning: Consult with your DM before selecting a race as your DM has probably only included a limited number of these races in his/her campaign world. If you get your heart set on a race only to discover that it is not available in the campaign you will be playing in, you will be disappointed. However, if you did not find out which races are available for play from your DM before selecting a race, you only have yourself to blame for your disappointment.

Quote from: Spinachcat;535189I am happy for WotC to tell me what races/classes are common, uncommon, rare in a particular setting...but not in the core books.

Only the GM decides what's rare or common in their setting.

Another in agreement here.  I have this eerie feeling that the rating system is some kind of bridge to a D&D CCG tie in later down the line.  I'm not opposed to races being categorized in this way as long as there is no mechanical tie to the ratings or categories.  That is to say, if it's merely an organizational tool, then I would be cool with it but I suspect that there is something more behind this rating system.

Making all races equally optional is a nice idea. To make that work, the writers must develop a fitting address. THE GM DECIDES in big red letters won't do. Why would I buy or read a game, if I can't be sure to use what's in it?

Forgian narrative works, of course. These games usually dedicate a lot of space for planning a game together as a group. These texts and techniques need to appear before a player even comes to read through races and classes. They must even more interesting than creating your own character.

To make that work DnD would have to give up on the DMG / PHB split. Starting a game has to appear as the collective responsibility of the group. Otherwise there will always be player who naturally expect to play anything they find in a book.

Monstrous races don't have a place at my table unless we are specifically designing a campaign around them.

Quote from: Melan;535176Freaky monster races like dragonborn, tieflings, robots, elves, halflings and dwarves belong in the Monster Manual. Stick with humans as the only core option, but give them a nice array of simple background packages like "steppe nomad", "merchant" or "degenerate urbanite". :pundit:

Fantastic plan .

Then add new races with the setting books but make the Human cultural options in those books just as interesting.

I want half-elves and half-orcs to NOT be in the core rulebook. Other than that, I don't care.

humans only in the core just wouldn't seem like d&d.

i'm for the originals (i mean, human/elf/dwarf/halfling) but i can see dropping the 1/2 and making it a core 3 :idunno:

Quote from: beeber;535303humans only in the core just wouldn't seem like d&d.

i'm for the originals (i mean, human/elf/dwarf/halfling) but i can see dropping the 1/2 and making it a core 3 :idunno:

That would be just like the Pathfinder Beginner Box.

Human, Elf, Dwarf.

Quote from: PaladinCA;535506That would be just like the Pathfinder Beginner Box.

Human, Elf, Dwarf.

aagh, don't tell me that, you'll make me spend more money on gaming stuff!

Quote from: beeber;535514aagh, don't tell me that, you'll make me spend more money on gaming stuff!

That particular purchase would be a good one though. Paizo really did a Beginner's box the way it should be done.

Quote from: danbuter;535282I want half-elves and half-orcs to NOT be in the core rulebook. Other than that, I don't care.

I have to say, I don't get that.  You don't want them to be core-rule races, fine; but you don't want them to be in the book at all? Why  not?
How does this reflect a "big tent" kind of point of view; we're not even talking about warforged or dragonborn here, we're talking about two races that have been part of D&D since 1e.

I personally rarely use these races myself (I often prefer to either have full-blooded orcs as PC races, or nothing of the sort).  But I don't see why other players who want them should  be denied having them, or should be forced to buy another rulebook to get them.

RPGPundit

I'd actually prefer full-blooded orcs or goblins as a PC race to half-elves or half-orcs. Dragonborn are fine, as well. I just don't really care for half-races. I think they are dumb.

Quote from: Marleycat;535520That particular purchase would be a good one though. Paizo really did a Beginner's box the way it should be done.

It is a starter set done right.

Unless you dislike d20 games or Pathfinder in particular, I'll second the purchase advice.