PDA

View Full Version : Do you consider monster races core?



clericwithnogod
2007-02-08, 08:11 PM
I've always considered a game that is "core only" to mean players are limited to races described in the Player's Handbook for character creation. and that deviations from that list occur as optional exceptions allowed by the DM rather than any monster whose level adjustment is in the range for character creation being available as a PC by default.

Matthew
2007-02-08, 08:17 PM
That would be a logical interpretation. There is a fine distinction between core and core variant.

Elliot Kane
2007-02-08, 08:19 PM
Sounds about right to me, too :)

Raistlin1040
2007-02-08, 08:20 PM
I think for players to play more exotic races is core. If a player wants an orc or goblin then sure. If they want a mind flayer or rust monster then that's not core and would need special rules. But I let my players play most humanoids with no racial HD and an LA of +1 or less and consider it core.

Neon Knight
2007-02-08, 08:21 PM
I'd say Monster races are core. I mean, Core is defined as the Dungeon Master's Guide, the Player's Handbook, and MMI. Not just Player's Handbook.

Jack Mann
2007-02-08, 08:28 PM
Here we have the difference between "core races" and "standard races." Standard races are the ones in the PHB. Core races are any races that are in the core books.

Clarity of intention: It's your friend and mine!

Galathir
2007-02-08, 10:48 PM
I just consider the PHB races "core". Although the races in the MM are certainly from a core book, you generally need (at least in my experience) a DM's permission to use them. It also seems to me that things like Goblins and Gnolls are primarily monsters, and only PC races in certain situations.

Quietus
2007-02-08, 11:07 PM
Definately not core, but I do allow them for any player I imagine is experienced enough to play them. Anything that you need to ask your DM about doesn't qualify as core, IMO.

TheOOB
2007-02-09, 12:05 AM
Your asking two seperate questions, "Do you consider monster races core?" which is an invalid question. All races present in the PHB, DMG, and MM are core no matter what your opinion is.

The other question is "Do you allow all monsters races to be available by default" which is a valid question, though you lack the most common and logical choice "If I check it and approve it before hand".

Very few good DMs will allow something into their game based solely on what source it came from, core or otherwise. Instead of outright allowing all the races from a book (like the MM for instance), usually a player will ask if they can play x race, the DM will reach the race and consider it, then pass judgement.

silentknight
2007-02-15, 01:53 PM
I feel that using the races in the PHB is traditional, but because the MM is a core book, then MM monster races are core for character creation. That's why I always specify exactly which books I allow instead of just saying "core."

InaVegt
2007-02-15, 02:00 PM
Your asking two seperate questions, "Do you consider monster races core?" which is an invalid question. All races present in the PHB, DMG, and MM are core no matter what your opinion is.
No question is invalid, the thougt processes behind a question might have made a few wrong turns but that doesn't make the question any less valid. The question has an easy answer, by the definition of core they are core, and I agree with you CwnG has made a few wrong turns on his thought processes before asking his question, but the question stays valid.

Josh Inno
2007-02-15, 03:10 PM
They are in a core book, so they are Core.

And technically, you need your DM's permision to play anything. It's just that most of the time the races from the PHB can be assumed to be allowed unless your DM has a campaign that invalidates some of them.

I wouldn't let people play halflings in a Dragonlance campaign without a darn good reason, for example.

Nerd-o-rama
2007-02-15, 04:11 PM
The moral of the story, I think, is if you're not sure, ask the DM. I can't see any reason other than setting to disallow, say, goblins or kobolds.

Yakk
2007-02-15, 04:15 PM
They are optional core content. While all content is "optional", content flagged as "optional" is even more optional.

Which means unless explicitly allowed, they are disallowed. Just like prestige classes -- no player should assume a prestige class exists, or that they can join the guild that provides the class, without explicit DM statements to that effect.

LotharBot
2007-02-15, 06:10 PM
Yakk is exactly right.

By definition, they are "optional core". They're part of the core material (ie, PHB/DMG/MM1) that's specifically marked as "optional, ask your DM if you want to play one of these races."

Saithis Bladewing
2007-02-15, 06:18 PM
I consider the monster races to be optional core, but I always allow them in (unless they're going for REALLY blatant cheese.)

greenknight
2007-02-15, 06:44 PM
As Jack Mann said, MaR is Core, but the only PC races which are Core are the ones in the PHB. This means that when playing by Core Rules, a DM can create NPCs which combine monsters with character classes, but Players can't.

Jack Mann
2007-02-15, 08:51 PM
Nope, core rules allow for PCs to play goblins and the like. You can play a goblin and it's still a core game. You are playing by the Core Rules. Nothing in the core rules disallows this, and in fact the rules support it nicely. It doesn't matter whether the DM considers them core or not. The DM could consider 2.5 an integer, but he'd still be wrong. If you don't consider goblins and orcs to be core races, you're incorrect. They are in the core. They are races. The core rules allow you to play them. Ergo, they are core. And the only default restriction on PC and non-PC races is level adjustment and ECL (i.e. LA: -- is a non PC race)

What they aren't are standard races (or common races, as they're referred to in the DMG). Those are your basic, PHB races. This is where clarity of intent comes in. If you just say core races only, this reasonably includes variants such gray elves, tallfellow halflings, and forest gnomes, as well as goblins and orcs. If you don't want them using these races (or others, assuming the campaign is high enough level and of a nature that could fit them), you should say standard or common races. This will reduce confusion all around.

Yakk
2007-02-23, 06:31 PM
Can you cite the line where player characters are told they can be non-standard races?

There are rules in the core for many things that are optional.

Jack Mann
2007-02-23, 10:05 PM
I never said it wasn't optional. My point is that what makes it optional is that they aren't common races. They are still core races.

Goblins and orcs are treated exactly like elves and gnomes by the rules. If you want to build an orc chieftain for your players to face, you have to use the same rules you use when building an elf. If you advance them, you need to use class levels. The difference--the only difference--is that the players don't have access to them by the standard rules.

If you simply say, "core races only," you're being less than clear. A goblin is a core race. So is a gray elf. The proper term for the races in the PHB is Common, though I've heard Standard used as well. Either of those gets across the intent. Core Races does not. And that's the difference.

Matthew
2007-02-24, 12:06 PM
Isn't that option listed as a Variant in the DMG? I'm not sure, as I don't have a 3.5 version.

Yakk
2007-02-24, 12:21 PM
I never said it wasn't optional. My point is that what makes it optional is that they aren't common races. They are still core races.

Your use of the term core X is different than mine. Clearly.


Goblins and orcs are treated exactly like elves and gnomes by the rules.

So are great wyrm red dragons. They don't have an ECL by the rules, but the rules required to play a great wyrm red dragon exist.

I believe that the rules for playing non-player races as player races are listed as a varient or optional rule. Optional rules are not core rules -- they are in the core books, but they are not part of the core rules.


If you want to build an orc chieftain for your players to face, you have to use the same rules you use when building an elf.

Yes, that is true, you build an elf NPC the same way as you build an orc NPC.


If you advance them, you need to use class levels. The difference--the only difference--is that the players don't have access to them by the standard rules.

Yes, by the core rules, giving players access to the non player races is an optional rule. By the core rules, you need explicit permission of the DM for an optional rule to be in play.

So if one says "core races only", and one does not say that a the optional rule allowing non-PC (ie, monster) races to be played as PCs is in play, then the races allowed are the player character races.


If you simply say, "core races only," you're being less than clear.

You don't agree that optional rules should be assumed to be not in play unless the DM says she is using them?


A goblin is a core race. So is a gray elf. The proper term for the races in the PHB is Common, though I've heard Standard used as well. Either of those gets across the intent. Core Races does not. And that's the difference.

I disagree. If the DM says "here are some characters. We are playing by core rules. The game starts with all of you are in a bar fight. Bob is attacking Alice -- please evaluate the attack."

Now, if Alice picked up a d20 to roll her defence, would that be a case of the DM being less than clear? Would Alice have a leg to stand on if she rolled good on her defence, and the DM said "what are you doing? You don't use a d20 for defence, only for attack."

Using a d20 for both attack and defence is an optional rule in the core rulebooks. So are non-player races being used as player races.

TheOOB
2007-02-24, 12:23 PM
No question is invalid, the thougt processes behind a question might have made a few wrong turns but that doesn't make the question any less valid. The question has an easy answer, by the definition of core they are core, and I agree with you CwnG has made a few wrong turns on his thought processes before asking his question, but the question stays valid.

Acually, the question "Do you consider monster races core" as the question is asking for an opinion when the only answer is a facual one with nothing to do with opinion.

Everything in the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual is core material, like it or not, and do amount of opinions will change that fact. That is not to say that the rules are not optional(everything in D&D is), nor does that say that if you allow standard D&D races (from the PHB) that you have to allow monsterous D&D races(from the MM). If it's in one of the three mentioned books, even if it's listed as a varient rule, it's core, what you choose to do with it is up to you.

Like I said before, a questions along the lines of "Do you allow monster races in your games" or "Do you consider playable monster races to be an important part of the game" are valid as the answer is a matter of opinion, but an opinion for the question "Do you consider monster races core" is irrelevent as the answer is a definate fact.

PinkysBrain
2007-02-24, 12:32 PM
Clericwithnogod, your rules lawyering fu is weak ... it's not an optional rule, its a variant rule.

The entirety of chapter 6 in the DMG is composed of variant rules actually. This includes things like using MM races for characters, prestige classes, special cohorts, improved familiars and epic.

jono
2007-02-24, 01:25 PM
Rules-wise I would say yes. Setting-wise I would say no.

Rules-wise, using monster races with an LA (or a revised LA depending on things) doesn't require too much re-write on the part of the DM. You give them the race, apply the modifiers, reduce their XP accordingly, or snip off some character levels; no problem. You have a workable stat block which more or less balances with a standard race of the same ECL in class levels.

Setting-wise however, things are different. All three core rule books seem to proport what you could consider a deafult outlook of the civilised world; with the default races as the members of civilised society. You can easily craft a human or elven adventurer within this outlook, without nessicarily having to alter it too much. Monster races however, are almost all considered outsiders to the civilised world, meaning you have to completely alter their motivation and default positions in order to convincingly incorperate them into the game. Goblins for example, while easy to incorperate into the rules, are considered universally as a pest and an evil mischeif-causing race. So of course you have to alter that setting, and/or make up some reason why this paticular goblin is different. It's not just a personal thing for the character however; why isn't he detained or killed on sight by the townspeople. Hell, why didn't the militia put an arrow through his eye the minute he walked into range of the gate?

Either way, I'm ambiguous about using monster races, providing they aren't broken or ridiculous. It can make for quite an interesting campaign. One of my favourite campaigns, I played a goblin where the entire race was enslaved by the empire; the strongest being drafted into military service.

clericwithnogod
2007-02-24, 02:43 PM
No question is invalid, the thougt processes behind a question might have made a few wrong turns but that doesn't make the question any less valid. The question has an easy answer, by the definition of core they are core, and I agree with you CwnG has made a few wrong turns on his thought processes before asking his question, but the question stays valid.

I would like to know what those wrong turns were... Since I haven't explained any of my thought processes, this should be a lot of fun to read.