Not to take sides in a debate about what's fun or interesting (debating this seems like the best way to take the fun out of anything, to be honest), an incorrigible kleptomaniac does have a higher chance of disrupting a campaign than a character with a speech deficiency that has to resort to mimicry. Both can be tedious and annoying and both can be fun, but frequent and impromptu petty larceny has broken up more than one party I've been involved with.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Not to take sides in a debate about what's fun or interesting (debating this seems like the best way to take the fun out of anything, to be honest), an incorrigible kleptomaniac does have a higher chance of disrupting a campaign than a character with a speech deficiency that has to resort to mimicry. Both can be tedious and annoying and both can be fun, but frequent and impromptu petty larceny has broken up more than one party I've been involved with.
As but you are assuming they are player characters. They can be quite fun as NPC's. If the players run into the gully dwarves after never seeing them before, it could start an adventure to fix their behavior. Such as you could hint its a curse applied upon the tribe for some prior deed. Maybe they were hill dwarves who went against an ancient unknown and it cursed them with madness. I did have one campaign where a party did do just that and got one hell of a good hammer for running the long quest line against the Illithids.
As to the Kender, Gully Dwarf or Kenku, they all have mental limitations place on them. And people of a particular ideological bent, are upset against the Kender and Gully Dwarfs because their politically ideologies told them to be upset. They don't really care in real life, but they do want to come of as being virtuous. Its trite and sad.
Not to take sides in a debate about what's fun or interesting (debating this seems like the best way to take the fun out of anything, to be honest), an incorrigible kleptomaniac does have a higher chance of disrupting a campaign than a character with a speech deficiency that has to resort to mimicry. Both can be tedious and annoying and both can be fun, but frequent and impromptu petty larceny has broken up more than one party I've been involved with.
As but you are assuming they are player characters. They can be quite fun as NPC's. If the players run into the gully dwarves after never seeing them before, it could start an adventure to fix their behavior. Such as you could hint its a curse applied upon the tribe for some prior deed. Maybe they were hill dwarves who went against an ancient unknown and it cursed them with madness. I did have one campaign where a party did do just that and got one hell of a good hammer for running the long quest line against the Illithids.
As to the Kender, Gully Dwarf or Kenku, they all have mental limitations place on them. And people of a particular ideological bent, are upset against the Kender and Gully Dwarfs because their politically ideologies told them to be upset. They don't really care in real life, but they do want to come of as being virtuous. Its trite and sad.
Well, you brought up Kenku as a counterexample - and Kenku are a player race.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I figure that I would chime in for sake of the original topic of this post before it gets locked like all previous posts that started down this road.
I am excited to see what is coming up and I am glad that we don't have to wait too long to see what is coming up. I will venture a guess at a Ravenloft book of some kind given that WotC already announced that two books with the Vistani would be released "soon". With the Revised Curse of Strahd released already we still have one more to go.
Not to take sides in a debate about what's fun or interesting (debating this seems like the best way to take the fun out of anything, to be honest), an incorrigible kleptomaniac does have a higher chance of disrupting a campaign than a character with a speech deficiency that has to resort to mimicry. Both can be tedious and annoying and both can be fun, but frequent and impromptu petty larceny has broken up more than one party I've been involved with.
As but you are assuming they are player characters. They can be quite fun as NPC's. If the players run into the gully dwarves after never seeing them before, it could start an adventure to fix their behavior. Such as you could hint its a curse applied upon the tribe for some prior deed. Maybe they were hill dwarves who went against an ancient unknown and it cursed them with madness. I did have one campaign where a party did do just that and got one hell of a good hammer for running the long quest line against the Illithids.
As to the Kender, Gully Dwarf or Kenku, they all have mental limitations place on them. And people of a particular ideological bent, are upset against the Kender and Gully Dwarfs because their politically ideologies told them to be upset. They don't really care in real life, but they do want to come of as being virtuous. Its trite and sad.
Well, you brought up Kenku as a counterexample - and Kenku are a player race.
Oh most assuredly I brought up Kenku as an example to show the hypocrisy of people complaining about races in D&D. They haven't been told yet to be upset with Kenku, so they don't show publicly their dismay with the Kenku. And when you bring them up as an example, well now they have to make a choice between jumping the shark and sticking with their political ideology and state yes Kenku are bad, or remain silent or come of as hypocrite. By the current peoples ideology complaining about orcs, drow, kender and gully dwarfs well my god Kenku they are worse - just look at them based on the behavior of crows from Dumbo. Its just political hay waiting to take place. But no one wants to jump the shark on Kenku just yet.
And yes you can run a Kender who is full on LN and not a theif or a Gully Dwarf whose the wisest wizard of the land. Its a fantasy game and its fun to play characters that go against the grain of the world. Someone would have to have some form of brain limitation not to understand that in fantasy games you can do what you want, that's what makes the game fun.
I figure that I would chime in for sake of the original topic of this post before it gets locked like all previous posts that started down this road.
I am excited to see what is coming up and I am glad that we don't have to wait too long to see what is coming up. I will venture a guess at a Ravenloft book of some kind given that WotC already announced that two books with the Vistani would be released "soon". With the Revised Curse of Strahd released already we still have one more to go.
Yeah its most likely going to be Ravenloft, it comes with a pre-made campaign already set up and beloved by most players. I can't see WotC trying for another Magic the Gathering release now, they don't do well. I still see the Magic the Gathering miniatures in the hobby shop unsold, with a few of their books to boot.
That being written, I'd love Spelljammer and its ship minis but I'm not holding my breath.
Oh most assuredly I brought up Kenku as an example to show the hypocrisy of people complaining about races in D&D. They haven't been told yet to be upset with Kenku, so they don't show publicly their dismay with the Kenku. And when you bring them up as an example, well now they have to make a choice between jumping the shark and sticking with their political ideology and state yes Kenku are bad, or remain silent or come of as hypocrite. By the current peoples ideology complaining about orcs, drow, kender and gully dwarfs well my god Kenku they are worse - just look at them based on the behavior of crows from Dumbo. Its just political hay waiting to take place. But no one wants to jump the shark on Kenku just yet.
And yes you can run a Kender who is full on LN and not a theif or a Gully Dwarf whose the wisest wizard of the land. Its a fantasy game and its fun to play characters that go against the grain of the world. Someone would have to have some form of brain limitation not to understand that in fantasy games you can do what you want, that's what makes the game fun.
Kenku are ok. Their lack of original creation ability doesn't mean they can't be smart. But the point was that you can't argue I shouldn't necessarily think of Kender or Gully Dwarves as player races while at the same time bringing up Kenku, a player race, as a counterexample - that logic doesn't hold up.
Playing against type is kind of a half-baked argument, no offense. As a DM I'd find it more than a bit silly to tell my players they're allowed to play a certain race, but only if they play as an atypical specimen of that race. Even with something like Drow I'd never tell my players they can play a non-evil Drow only. I might tell them they can only play non-evil characters in general, but there's a difference.
I don't think I'll ban Kender or Gully Dwarves if WotC releases a Dragonlance book that has them as player options. I will, particularly with newer player, have a bit of a chat during session zero if I see characters getting created that are more likely to be disruptive than most and seeing a Kender or Gully Dwarf is probably going to at least register as something to keep an eye on. That already happens with Goblin or Kobold characters though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Oh most assuredly I brought up Kenku as an example to show the hypocrisy of people complaining about races in D&D. They haven't been told yet to be upset with Kenku, so they don't show publicly their dismay with the Kenku. And when you bring them up as an example, well now they have to make a choice between jumping the shark and sticking with their political ideology and state yes Kenku are bad, or remain silent or come of as hypocrite. By the current peoples ideology complaining about orcs, drow, kender and gully dwarfs well my god Kenku they are worse - just look at them based on the behavior of crows from Dumbo. Its just political hay waiting to take place. But no one wants to jump the shark on Kenku just yet.
And yes you can run a Kender who is full on LN and not a theif or a Gully Dwarf whose the wisest wizard of the land. Its a fantasy game and its fun to play characters that go against the grain of the world. Someone would have to have some form of brain limitation not to understand that in fantasy games you can do what you want, that's what makes the game fun.
Kenku are ok. Their lack of original creation ability doesn't mean they can't be smart. But the point was that you can't argue I shouldn't necessarily think of Kender or Gully Dwarves as player races while at the same time bringing up Kenku, a player race, as a counterexample - that logic doesn't hold up.
Playing against type is kind of a half-baked argument, no offense. As a DM I'd find it more than a bit silly to tell my players they're allowed to play a certain race, but only if they play as an atypical specimen of that race. Even with something like Drow I'd never tell my players they can play a non-evil Drow only. I might tell them they can only play non-evil characters in general, but there's a difference.
I don't think I'll ban Kender or Gully Dwarves if WotC releases a Dragonlance book that has them as player options. I will, particularly with newer player, have a bit of a chat during session zero if I see characters getting created that are more likely to be disruptive than most and seeing a Kender or Gully Dwarf is probably going to at least register as something to keep an eye on. That already happens with Goblin or Kobold characters though.
Kender and Gully Dwarves can be quite playable as races. You do NOT have to play a kender as a thief. I played a Kender as NG Ranger a few years back. Why are you asserting that people can't play characters as they want, it is a fantasy game? I take it in your world, everything has to follow a very strict defined rule set? You do realize can adjust the rules and setting and a large part of the fun is to play a character that goes against the grain. And yes Kenku and Kender and Gully Dwarves are all equally viable as player characters. Including if the Kender want to play a bit of a trickster or a thief in the party or the Gully Dwarf wants to play a fool, guess what that's equally viable in the party if they want to do the stereotype. I play with the race and against the race for my characters all the time.
Now if your party is dry, has no sense of humor and you DM that way, then yes it can cause problems if they have to follow the race as written. It depends on how you set the ground rules for play. I always require players to have a reason to go adventuring and we set the ground rules that aren't going after each other. It makes for a lot easier play and the players can act out on the environment and not on each other. I've learned that approach after a few decades to avoid issues.
I figure that I would chime in for sake of the original topic of this post before it gets locked like all previous posts that started down this road.
I am excited to see what is coming up and I am glad that we don't have to wait too long to see what is coming up. I will venture a guess at a Ravenloft book of some kind given that WotC already announced that two books with the Vistani would be released "soon". With the Revised Curse of Strahd released already we still have one more to go.
Yeah its most likely going to be Ravenloft, it comes with a pre-made campaign already set up and beloved by most players. I can't see WotC trying for another Magic the Gathering release now, they don't do well. I still see the Magic the Gathering miniatures in the hobby shop unsold, with a few of their books to boot.
That being written, I'd love Spelljammer and its ship minis but I'm not holding my breath.
I don't know about RL if it's going to be a setting book. The "revisited worlds" are supposed to be stuff not seen in 5e yet and Strahd even got a deluxe edition in house. I know an adventure isn't really a setting book, but Ravensloft is the setting of those games and the statement from WotC high ups were 2-3 not yet visited classic settings over the next two years and the MtG tie ins. That latter part is the only reason I think we'd see a FR book, because it'd be timed and tied to the MtG release. Speaking of, has WotC announced anything about those FR MtG cards?
To the gang that has turned this thread into a debate over Dragonlance, remember we don't know what's coming. As for the Gully Dwarf and Kender, I could see the Gully Dwarves revised into a race that's sort of reskinned Minions from the Despicable Me franchise (a species that has proved endearing if box office and merchandising is to be followed. Kender ... I see the Chaotic Stupid rap they get in play. That said, passages of the original DL novels that sit in Tasslehoff's perspective are some of the best written parts of an otherwise largely "OK" written series. You could deride them as a "childish" race, but really they're simply anarchic and the game traits of fearlessness, the taunt, and yes their complete disregard for the concept of property are exhibitions of a people whose psychology doesn't have the capacity to consider what conventional psychology calls boundaries. I'll admit though that, it is problematic to throw that fictitious perspective into a game where contemporary understandings of propriety and property are the guiding mores.
You mock their intelligence and suggest that they are somehow less valuable because of their flaws but go reread the novels again. Tas was a central character, his impact on the storyline was massive, and his innocent kleptomania was a plot device on numerous occasions, not to mention his humorous nature which injected fun into some dark and oppressive plot lines. I loved his character throughout all of the books not just the original three.
Dismissing the Gully Dwarves is equally as bad, and some of the comments almost imply that they are thought of as 'sub-human' and that is the very opposite of virtue signalling! Who can really look at the interaction and effects of Bupu on Raistlin - sure she wasn't a central character, but she influenced and changed one of the major characters in ways that nobody else could. Not to forget the Cattle-pult, which shows innovation and invention, not to mention courage and dedication. All of which seriously out-way their albeit substantial flaws.
Why are you asserting that people can't play characters as they want, it is a fantasy game? I take it in your world, everything has to follow a very strict defined rule set?
Where am I asserting anything like that?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I figure that I would chime in for sake of the original topic of this post before it gets locked like all previous posts that started down this road.
I am excited to see what is coming up and I am glad that we don't have to wait too long to see what is coming up. I will venture a guess at a Ravenloft book of some kind given that WotC already announced that two books with the Vistani would be released "soon". With the Revised Curse of Strahd released already we still have one more to go.
Yeah its most likely going to be Ravenloft, it comes with a pre-made campaign already set up and beloved by most players. I can't see WotC trying for another Magic the Gathering release now, they don't do well. I still see the Magic the Gathering miniatures in the hobby shop unsold, with a few of their books to boot.
That being written, I'd love Spelljammer and its ship minis but I'm not holding my breath.
I don't know about RL if it's going to be a setting book. The "revisited worlds" are supposed to be stuff not seen in 5e yet and Strahd even got a deluxe edition in house. I know an adventure isn't really a setting book, but Ravensloft is the setting of those games and the statement from WotC high ups were 2-3 not yet visited classic settings over the next two years and the MtG tie ins. That latter part is the only reason I think we'd see a FR book, because it'd be timed and tied to the MtG release. Speaking of, has WotC announced anything about those FR MtG cards?
Uggh MtG tie ins, well good for them. I'm sure they'll put in one good concept tied to the book that will have use to all play like the Legendary trait, and that'll be it. I'm expecting Ravenloft, but not clue. The only one I'd need would be Spelljammer to cut down on the conversion time. I've got it most working for 5E but I wouldn't mind seeing the official rules. I own all the original material, but again it would save time to have the 2nd AD&D monsters converted to 5E, that one is quite the ordeal frankly due to bulk of them.
Ravenloft and Dragonlance are the two most likely for sure. Dragonlance kept TSR in business for AD&D and it would have failed sooner. We've seen some spelljamming in the world, Mad Mage for example, and it would allow for some open story telling and connection between Eberon and Faerun. We've seen ship rules for Saltmarsh and Avernus, so maybe they are looking into it, but Spelljammer never sold well. If I had to guess I'd say the 3rd one would be Planescape, the video game alone would help brand recognition - very well done game for its time.
Why are you asserting that people can't play characters as they want, it is a fantasy game? I take it in your world, everything has to follow a very strict defined rule set?
Where am I asserting anything like that?
From reading you are assuming players are going to play the traits as listed for the race and you'd have to watch them and you'd expect players to play as written more than atypical in your campaign.
Why are you asserting that people can't play characters as they want, it is a fantasy game? I take it in your world, everything has to follow a very strict defined rule set?
Where am I asserting anything like that?
From reading you are assuming players are going to play the traits as listed for the race and you'd have to watch them and you'd expect players to play as written more than atypical in your campaign.
I didn't say anything of the kind. You said Kender being kleptomaniacs isn't so bad because players don't have to play their character like that. Your argument, not mine, is that playing against type can make a race less problematic. What logically follows from that is that not playing against type does make it problematic, at least to an extent. If that's the case, a DM has three options for dealing with the problem: not allowing the race at all, only allowing it if the player doesn't play it in a problematic/typical way (which seems silly to me), or suffering through. Again, your argument, not mine. All I said about what I might do is that I'd probably allow the races and that I keep an eye out for potentially disruptive character concepts - not even that I'd disallow such concepts either, just that I'd have a word with the player so everybody's got more or less the same expectations. Nobody enjoys playing a character for a couple of levels to then get told by the other players they're making the game less fun for them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I didn't say anything of the kind. You said Kender being kleptomaniacs isn't so bad because players don't have to play their character like that. Your argument, not mine, is that playing against type can make a race less problematic. What logically follows from that is that not playing against type does make it problematic, at least to an extent. If that's the case, a DM has three options for dealing with the problem: not allowing the race at all, only allowing it if the player doesn't play it in a problematic/typical way (which seems silly to me), or suffering through. Again, your argument, not mine. All I said about what I might do is that I'd probably allow the races and that I keep an eye out for potentially disruptive character concepts - not even that I'd disallow such concepts either, just that I'd have a word with the player so everybody's got more or less the same expectations. Nobody enjoys playing a character for a couple of levels to then get told by the other players they're making the game less fun for them.
To an extent it depends on your players. If you are playing with mature players who know how far to push things and still keep it in the realms of fun then great but if you are playing with a jerk then it doesn't really matter what character they play. I agree that allowing an inexperienced player to create a character from either race is likely to cause problems but in the hands of a good player - fun for all.
I didn't say anything of the kind. You said Kender being kleptomaniacs isn't so bad because players don't have to play their character like that. Your argument, not mine, is that playing against type can make a race less problematic. What logically follows from that is that not playing against type does make it problematic, at least to an extent. If that's the case, a DM has three options for dealing with the problem: not allowing the race at all, only allowing it if the player doesn't play it in a problematic/typical way (which seems silly to me), or suffering through. Again, your argument, not mine. All I said about what I might do is that I'd probably allow the races and that I keep an eye out for potentially disruptive character concepts - not even that I'd disallow such concepts either, just that I'd have a word with the player so everybody's got more or less the same expectations. Nobody enjoys playing a character for a couple of levels to then get told by the other players they're making the game less fun for them.
To an extent it depends on your players. If you are playing with mature players who know how far to push things and still keep it in the realms of fun then great but if you are playing with a jerk then it doesn't really matter what character they play. I agree that allowing an inexperienced player to create a character from either race is likely to cause problems but in the hands of a good player - fun for all.
Sure, but that might mean I have to warn one player that the character concept he's working on might be disruptive and could ruin the fun for the other players, so to keep that in mind and make sure it doesn't get too egregious, while either hoping another player with a similar concept understands it's ok for him, or tell that player he doesn't have to worry about what I said to the first one. And in the mean time hope I didn't upset that first player or turn him off from the game. I can deal with this, it's not something i'm going to lose sleep over, I'm just saying this isn't some negligible issue that will never have a negative impact. People can play what they want, but they have to be aware there might be consequences they won't like - and not necessarily because of something the DM does.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I figure that I would chime in for sake of the original topic of this post before it gets locked like all previous posts that started down this road.
I am excited to see what is coming up and I am glad that we don't have to wait too long to see what is coming up. I will venture a guess at a Ravenloft book of some kind given that WotC already announced that two books with the Vistani would be released "soon". With the Revised Curse of Strahd released already we still have one more to go.
KENNNNDEEEEEEEEEEERRRRR!!!!! *shakes fist*
My guess is either Ravenloft or Dragonlance; I'm erring towards Dragonlance largely from hints that've been dropping elsewhere on the interwebz lately, and also because I think they'd save Ravenloft for a spoopy Halloween event. I wondered briefly if they were gearing up for something as thematically incoherent as Tasha's, but there hasn't been enough UA for us to get Terrance and Phillip's Manual of Flatulence Everything just yet.
I’d honestly be up for anything. I’d really like a setting book of a similar quality to Eberron or Wildemount but as far as what setting I’m pretty neutral.
I want Dark Sun, but more so for the few races common to those places and more Psionic options (despite how controversial Psionic is in D&D is). I’d also be fine with a M:tG setting book as I enjoyed the content in the Ravnica ad Theros books.
Honestly, anything that gives us more monsters, magical items, spells, and/or race and subrace options would excite me. We just got a slew of subclasses so I can wait a bit for more (though I wouldn’t say no to them)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
(I personally hate Kenku for the same reason I hate Kender and Gully Dwarves. It restricts player roleplay and very commonly disrupts the campaign.)
I want Dark Sun, but I don't think that is what this book is going to be. It's probably Ravenloft or a Dragon Book (either Dragonlance or a Draconomicon).
They could surprise us all and do something that no one ever guessed, like they did last year with Explorer's Guide to Wildemount and the year before with Acq. Inc., but I'm not sure what this book would be in that case.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
What if its an update for Oerth given the last book was about one of its denizens?
I know very unlikely, but I can see that being bought, but it really depends on what they're focusing on.
The Neverwinter game next month on PC (and in March for consoles) is releasing a new Sharandar scenario with previous scenarios focused on new releases for 5e I was wondering if that might be a clue?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Not to take sides in a debate about what's fun or interesting (debating this seems like the best way to take the fun out of anything, to be honest), an incorrigible kleptomaniac does have a higher chance of disrupting a campaign than a character with a speech deficiency that has to resort to mimicry. Both can be tedious and annoying and both can be fun, but frequent and impromptu petty larceny has broken up more than one party I've been involved with.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
As but you are assuming they are player characters. They can be quite fun as NPC's. If the players run into the gully dwarves after never seeing them before, it could start an adventure to fix their behavior. Such as you could hint its a curse applied upon the tribe for some prior deed. Maybe they were hill dwarves who went against an ancient unknown and it cursed them with madness. I did have one campaign where a party did do just that and got one hell of a good hammer for running the long quest line against the Illithids.
As to the Kender, Gully Dwarf or Kenku, they all have mental limitations place on them. And people of a particular ideological bent, are upset against the Kender and Gully Dwarfs because their politically ideologies told them to be upset. They don't really care in real life, but they do want to come of as being virtuous. Its trite and sad.
Well, you brought up Kenku as a counterexample - and Kenku are a player race.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I figure that I would chime in for sake of the original topic of this post before it gets locked like all previous posts that started down this road.
I am excited to see what is coming up and I am glad that we don't have to wait too long to see what is coming up. I will venture a guess at a Ravenloft book of some kind given that WotC already announced that two books with the Vistani would be released "soon". With the Revised Curse of Strahd released already we still have one more to go.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Oh most assuredly I brought up Kenku as an example to show the hypocrisy of people complaining about races in D&D. They haven't been told yet to be upset with Kenku, so they don't show publicly their dismay with the Kenku. And when you bring them up as an example, well now they have to make a choice between jumping the shark and sticking with their political ideology and state yes Kenku are bad, or remain silent or come of as hypocrite. By the current peoples ideology complaining about orcs, drow, kender and gully dwarfs well my god Kenku they are worse - just look at them based on the behavior of crows from Dumbo. Its just political hay waiting to take place. But no one wants to jump the shark on Kenku just yet.
And yes you can run a Kender who is full on LN and not a theif or a Gully Dwarf whose the wisest wizard of the land. Its a fantasy game and its fun to play characters that go against the grain of the world. Someone would have to have some form of brain limitation not to understand that in fantasy games you can do what you want, that's what makes the game fun.
Yeah its most likely going to be Ravenloft, it comes with a pre-made campaign already set up and beloved by most players. I can't see WotC trying for another Magic the Gathering release now, they don't do well. I still see the Magic the Gathering miniatures in the hobby shop unsold, with a few of their books to boot.
That being written, I'd love Spelljammer and its ship minis but I'm not holding my breath.
Kenku are ok. Their lack of original creation ability doesn't mean they can't be smart. But the point was that you can't argue I shouldn't necessarily think of Kender or Gully Dwarves as player races while at the same time bringing up Kenku, a player race, as a counterexample - that logic doesn't hold up.
Playing against type is kind of a half-baked argument, no offense. As a DM I'd find it more than a bit silly to tell my players they're allowed to play a certain race, but only if they play as an atypical specimen of that race. Even with something like Drow I'd never tell my players they can play a non-evil Drow only. I might tell them they can only play non-evil characters in general, but there's a difference.
I don't think I'll ban Kender or Gully Dwarves if WotC releases a Dragonlance book that has them as player options. I will, particularly with newer player, have a bit of a chat during session zero if I see characters getting created that are more likely to be disruptive than most and seeing a Kender or Gully Dwarf is probably going to at least register as something to keep an eye on. That already happens with Goblin or Kobold characters though.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Kender and Gully Dwarves can be quite playable as races. You do NOT have to play a kender as a thief. I played a Kender as NG Ranger a few years back. Why are you asserting that people can't play characters as they want, it is a fantasy game? I take it in your world, everything has to follow a very strict defined rule set? You do realize can adjust the rules and setting and a large part of the fun is to play a character that goes against the grain. And yes Kenku and Kender and Gully Dwarves are all equally viable as player characters. Including if the Kender want to play a bit of a trickster or a thief in the party or the Gully Dwarf wants to play a fool, guess what that's equally viable in the party if they want to do the stereotype. I play with the race and against the race for my characters all the time.
Now if your party is dry, has no sense of humor and you DM that way, then yes it can cause problems if they have to follow the race as written. It depends on how you set the ground rules for play. I always require players to have a reason to go adventuring and we set the ground rules that aren't going after each other. It makes for a lot easier play and the players can act out on the environment and not on each other. I've learned that approach after a few decades to avoid issues.
I don't know about RL if it's going to be a setting book. The "revisited worlds" are supposed to be stuff not seen in 5e yet and Strahd even got a deluxe edition in house. I know an adventure isn't really a setting book, but Ravensloft is the setting of those games and the statement from WotC high ups were 2-3 not yet visited classic settings over the next two years and the MtG tie ins. That latter part is the only reason I think we'd see a FR book, because it'd be timed and tied to the MtG release. Speaking of, has WotC announced anything about those FR MtG cards?
To the gang that has turned this thread into a debate over Dragonlance, remember we don't know what's coming. As for the Gully Dwarf and Kender, I could see the Gully Dwarves revised into a race that's sort of reskinned Minions from the Despicable Me franchise (a species that has proved endearing if box office and merchandising is to be followed. Kender ... I see the Chaotic Stupid rap they get in play. That said, passages of the original DL novels that sit in Tasslehoff's perspective are some of the best written parts of an otherwise largely "OK" written series. You could deride them as a "childish" race, but really they're simply anarchic and the game traits of fearlessness, the taunt, and yes their complete disregard for the concept of property are exhibitions of a people whose psychology doesn't have the capacity to consider what conventional psychology calls boundaries. I'll admit though that, it is problematic to throw that fictitious perspective into a game where contemporary understandings of propriety and property are the guiding mores.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
You mock their intelligence and suggest that they are somehow less valuable because of their flaws but go reread the novels again. Tas was a central character, his impact on the storyline was massive, and his innocent kleptomania was a plot device on numerous occasions, not to mention his humorous nature which injected fun into some dark and oppressive plot lines. I loved his character throughout all of the books not just the original three.
Dismissing the Gully Dwarves is equally as bad, and some of the comments almost imply that they are thought of as 'sub-human' and that is the very opposite of virtue signalling! Who can really look at the interaction and effects of Bupu on Raistlin - sure she wasn't a central character, but she influenced and changed one of the major characters in ways that nobody else could. Not to forget the Cattle-pult, which shows innovation and invention, not to mention courage and dedication. All of which seriously out-way their albeit substantial flaws.
Where am I asserting anything like that?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Uggh MtG tie ins, well good for them. I'm sure they'll put in one good concept tied to the book that will have use to all play like the Legendary trait, and that'll be it. I'm expecting Ravenloft, but not clue. The only one I'd need would be Spelljammer to cut down on the conversion time. I've got it most working for 5E but I wouldn't mind seeing the official rules. I own all the original material, but again it would save time to have the 2nd AD&D monsters converted to 5E, that one is quite the ordeal frankly due to bulk of them.
Ravenloft and Dragonlance are the two most likely for sure. Dragonlance kept TSR in business for AD&D and it would have failed sooner. We've seen some spelljamming in the world, Mad Mage for example, and it would allow for some open story telling and connection between Eberon and Faerun. We've seen ship rules for Saltmarsh and Avernus, so maybe they are looking into it, but Spelljammer never sold well. If I had to guess I'd say the 3rd one would be Planescape, the video game alone would help brand recognition - very well done game for its time.
From reading you are assuming players are going to play the traits as listed for the race and you'd have to watch them and you'd expect players to play as written more than atypical in your campaign.
I didn't say anything of the kind. You said Kender being kleptomaniacs isn't so bad because players don't have to play their character like that. Your argument, not mine, is that playing against type can make a race less problematic. What logically follows from that is that not playing against type does make it problematic, at least to an extent. If that's the case, a DM has three options for dealing with the problem: not allowing the race at all, only allowing it if the player doesn't play it in a problematic/typical way (which seems silly to me), or suffering through. Again, your argument, not mine. All I said about what I might do is that I'd probably allow the races and that I keep an eye out for potentially disruptive character concepts - not even that I'd disallow such concepts either, just that I'd have a word with the player so everybody's got more or less the same expectations. Nobody enjoys playing a character for a couple of levels to then get told by the other players they're making the game less fun for them.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
To an extent it depends on your players. If you are playing with mature players who know how far to push things and still keep it in the realms of fun then great but if you are playing with a jerk then it doesn't really matter what character they play. I agree that allowing an inexperienced player to create a character from either race is likely to cause problems but in the hands of a good player - fun for all.
Sure, but that might mean I have to warn one player that the character concept he's working on might be disruptive and could ruin the fun for the other players, so to keep that in mind and make sure it doesn't get too egregious, while either hoping another player with a similar concept understands it's ok for him, or tell that player he doesn't have to worry about what I said to the first one. And in the mean time hope I didn't upset that first player or turn him off from the game. I can deal with this, it's not something i'm going to lose sleep over, I'm just saying this isn't some negligible issue that will never have a negative impact. People can play what they want, but they have to be aware there might be consequences they won't like - and not necessarily because of something the DM does.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
KENNNNDEEEEEEEEEEERRRRR!!!!! *shakes fist*
My guess is either Ravenloft or Dragonlance; I'm erring towards Dragonlance largely from hints that've been dropping elsewhere on the interwebz lately, and also because I think they'd save Ravenloft for a spoopy Halloween event. I wondered briefly if they were gearing up for something as thematically incoherent as Tasha's, but there hasn't been enough UA for us to get Terrance and Phillip's Manual of
FlatulenceEverything just yet.I’d honestly be up for anything. I’d really like a setting book of a similar quality to Eberron or Wildemount but as far as what setting I’m pretty neutral.
I want Dark Sun, but more so for the few races common to those places and more Psionic options (despite how controversial Psionic is in D&D is). I’d also be fine with a M:tG setting book as I enjoyed the content in the Ravnica ad Theros books.
Honestly, anything that gives us more monsters, magical items, spells, and/or race and subrace options would excite me. We just got a slew of subclasses so I can wait a bit for more (though I wouldn’t say no to them)
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
(I personally hate Kenku for the same reason I hate Kender and Gully Dwarves. It restricts player roleplay and very commonly disrupts the campaign.)
I want Dark Sun, but I don't think that is what this book is going to be. It's probably Ravenloft or a Dragon Book (either Dragonlance or a Draconomicon).
They could surprise us all and do something that no one ever guessed, like they did last year with Explorer's Guide to Wildemount and the year before with Acq. Inc., but I'm not sure what this book would be in that case.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
What if its an update for Oerth given the last book was about one of its denizens?
I know very unlikely, but I can see that being bought, but it really depends on what they're focusing on.
The Neverwinter game next month on PC (and in March for consoles) is releasing a new Sharandar scenario with previous scenarios focused on new releases for 5e I was wondering if that might be a clue?