Species Variants, How Many to Have? How Diverse?

[Mr. Mask]

I think DnD has thrown some duds with diversity of species. Elves are basically magic people in the forest, dwarves are basically magic people in the mountains and underground, then someone decided to have sea elves and sea dwarves under the sea.

Still, the idea of having different kinds of species, particularly those shown to have a lot of variants in the original legends, would make sense and could be interesting. The question is to what extent you want to take it. Do you want harpies with wings separate from arms, harpies with wing-arms, harpies with human-like bodies and harpies that are birds with human heads? That's at least three varieties, which are very different.

There is separately the question of the number of species. Do you want to have tons of fantasy species like DnD?

[Berenger]

I like to have a metric crap-ton of creatures and species in the rulebook, but not necessarily in any given setting. I think that distinction is important.

[Anonymouswizard]

Ironically, I like the standard D&D player species least of all. Maybe it's because they are just overused, but unless it's just elves/dwarves/humans I hate the standard races. Now this is a relatively new development, but it's my current views.

Now I do like a large range of species, my favourite being:
-Orcs/goblins (ideally as one species, a 'goblin' can just be a small orc)
-Lizardmen/dragonborn (because they get away from everyone being mammals)
-Harpies or some sort of bird-human hybrid thing. Ideally with wing-arms, although any will do.
-Plus an assortment of others, including various Beastmen (humans are monkeymen).

[Mr. Mask]

Berenger, & Wizard: Any thoughts on variants? Wizard mentioned he likes the idea of orcs, goblins, and maybe the other goblinoids being one species. Would you like to see Eastern, Western, and Obscure dragons? Three varieties of harpies? Chimeras of seemingly every blend of animals?

[Anonymouswizard]

Berenger, & Wizard: Any thoughts on variants? Wizard mentioned he likes the idea of orcs, goblins, and maybe the other goblinoids being one species. Would you like to see Eastern, Western, and Obscure dragons? Three varieties of harpies? Chimeras of seemingly every blend of animals?

On Dragons: I'd personally rather see them all as different species, Dragon versus Lung and the like. Mainly because me and my friend both like Dragons, I mean huge fire breathing lizards, she means lung.

On Harpies: sure, let's go ahead and have variety. I'd hesitate to give them all the same name to avoid confusion, but a selection of bird-people would be awesome. I know it's a bit ironic (okay, it's not, but I don't have a better word) considering I'd consolidate Orcs and Goblinoids, but I just don't like that much variation in one species.

On Chimera: I'm ambivalent on this one, but in my homebrew settings Chimera generally refers to an artificial crossbreed (so Owlbears are classes as Chimera).

For other ideas, in D&D I'd love to see winged and wingless Dragonborn. I know many people would love the former, while I'd still play the latter (heck, my Knowledge Cleric Perra is going to scuttle away on all fours whenever she gets nervous, she doesn't have the corebook build*). I'd also like to see variants of races adapted to extreme climates (for example, in my mind Perra comes from a very hot desert, and as such is a Brass Dragonborn with semi-metallic scales, while if she was from the artic she might be a white or silver Dragonborn). I'm not overly bothered about mythological differences being included, which means I could take or leave them, and generally I prefer more options.

* Oh, she has muscles, but she's also lithe and compact. Plus the idea of a six foot lizard person dropping whatever's in their hands for more speed amuses me.

[mikeejimbo]

I also tend to consolidate species, but I also like to really consider the taxonomy of the species in my setting. I have orcs and ogres as the same species - typically ogre refers to a large orc but there's no strict definition or phenotypic difference. Dwarves and gnomes are separate but closely related species, with hill giants (or just giants, in my setting) also close but not as close as dwarves/gnomes. (Dwarves and gnomes share a common ancestor that is more recent than the MRCA of that and giants.)

Dragonborn/Dragonmen/Draconian/Lizardfolk are all synonymous in my setting. They are closely related to kobolds.

Elves and drow are just different ethnic groups of the same species. (And with much different culture.)

I think I had orcs, humans, and elves in the same genus rather than the same species, as intrageneric hybridization isn't actually that uncommon. Though dwarves and gnomes usually couldn't interbreed and they shared a genus.

[Mr. Mask]

The talk of lizards reminds me of an idea for quadrupedal crocodile people I had. I was mostly interested in how they'd use weapons, having opposable foreclaws. It may involve a lot of rolling.


The question about harpy varieties, is all these varieties have been called harpies.

[Regitnui]

I'm always up for more interesting races. Just as an example, my latest campaign has (not necessarily all playable, mind you);

Khorvaire:

Humans
Shifters
Warforged
elves
Dwarves
Changelings
Gnomes
Halflings
Orcs/Half-Orcs
Khoravar (Half-Elves)
Goblinoids



Sarlona:

Dromites
Inspired (psionic humans)
Tieflings
Duergar
Genasi
Eneko (goliaths)
Humans (again)
Shifters (Again)
Dwarves (Rule of Three)



Xen'drik

Drow
Thri-keen
Tabaxi
Giants
Foreigners (Any or all of the above)
Dragonborn
Yuan-ti



And Miscellaneous:

Rajasi (homebrew Frostfell race)
Dragons (Argonessen)
Merfolk
Sahuagin
Aventi (Sea Kin/Aquatic Humans)
Aquatic Elves



Whoo... That's quite a long list, though it includes Eberron canon...

[Knaight]

It depends on the setting. Generally my list is just humans, but there are reasons to go for a great many intelligent species, reasons to go for a few but more than one, so on and so forth. Within each species, the number of distinct variants should be determined at least partially by how many species there are. If you have just humans, you might have a great number of culturally distinct groups, which may or may not also have meaningful physiological differences. If you have 30 species, you don't also need 20 elf variants.

[Anonymouswizard]

It depends on the setting. Generally my list is just humans, but there are reasons to go for a great many intelligent species, reasons to go for a few but more than one, so on and so forth. Within each species, the number of distinct variants should be determined at least partially by how many species there are. If you have just humans, you might have a great number of culturally distinct groups, which may or may not also have meaningful physiological differences. If you have 30 species, you don't also need 20 elf variants.

I think the depth of the changes should also affect it. So, using D&D 5e, elves should have less subtypes than Dragonborn because their Subraces vary more (an Ability Score Bonus and some features rather than Breath Weapon+Resistance).

Speaking of this, here's another one, should nonhuman races have cultural variants which aren't species variants? I say they should, because, going back to the Dragonborn (who I like because they are lizard people, not because they are dragony), their various resistances suggest different climates. So you have the desert-dwelling Brass, Gold, and Red, the Artic-dwelling White and Silver, the swamp(?) dwelling Black, Green, and Copper, all of which suggest different lifestyles (I'd also throw in mountain-dwelling Blue Dragonborn). It kind of makes me want to run a D&D setting where the only intelligent species is Dragonborn, and the various colours take the in-setting roles of the standard races. I'd rework the various Ability Score bonuses to depend on colour or just get rid of them entirely.

However, you get the problem of elves, where every cultural variant is actually a different subrace. If I ever run D&D again elves will live in woods, be magical, and like it. Dwarves will live underground and build stuff (although magic as well as tech, arcane compared to the elves' divine). Gnomes will have all burnt to death in a freak pitched battle accident. And so on. Dragonborn will be restricted to either Metallic or Chromatic and be part of an empire stretching across deserts and fertile plains.

[Berenger]

Berenger, & Wizard: Any thoughts on variants? Wizard mentioned he likes the idea of orcs, goblins, and maybe the other goblinoids being one species. Would you like to see Eastern, Western, and Obscure dragons? Three varieties of harpies? Chimeras of seemingly every blend of animals?

Yes, ideally I would like access to stats and descriptions for several versions of the same creature. For example, I once read a book that I one day want to emulate as an RPG. I was set in the 1920ies, with one exception: it has dragons. Small and animal-like critters and mighty, wizard-like elder dragons that schemed behind the scenes, eastern and western dragons, dragons with and without legs or wings etc., fought by holy warriors and mercenaries of every description. Also, airships and hot biplane-on-dragon action. Pure awesome. [Edit: I tend to get carried away by this idea.] Anyway, in a setting not focused on dragons, on the other hand, I'd probably not utilize as many types of them.

[SirBellias]

Usually in my story oriented games, I build a unique world with 6 or 7 races tops. I just can't figure out what place each species would have in the setting otherwise. In my more open games, I let people play whatever they want, as I don't build the world after a certain point. I prefer having more species available for options in world building. Different harpy variants would certainly be interesting, but they'd have to have different names, or else it would be difficult to differentiate between them in play.

[Regitnui]

However, you get the problem of elves, where every cultural variant is actually a different subrace. If I ever run D&D again elves will live in woods, be magical, and like it. Dwarves will live underground and build stuff (although magic as well as tech, arcane compared to the elves' divine). Gnomes will have all burnt to death in a freak pitched battle accident. And so on. Dragonborn will be restricted to either Metallic or Chromatic and be part of an empire stretching across deserts and fertile plains.

And their main political rivals will be a coalition of tiefling city states, with humans regarded as second-class citizens. They will fight many wars ultimately culminating in mutual annihilation, leaving the other races to rebuild from their wrecked empire. Then begins D&D 4e.

[Liquor Box]

I prefer fewer variants. As the OP says the game develops different species to fill different niches, then they provide variants of each species so the variants of that species can fill all niches. I have no problem with different groups in a different species adopting different appearances and cultures (as humans do in real life) but I don't think the mechanics of the species should change.

I also dislike variant species that are rare in the setting then being overused (without good reason) in a campaign. If Assimar or tieflings are rare in your setting (as they are in most published settings) the party should encounter fewer of them than the do (say) dwarfs.

I think the desire to make NPC's (and PCs, but that's a players preference) "interesting" leads people to make them non-standard races and the plethora of non-standard races decreases how interesting thse races are. If most of the NPC's are of standard races it makes those few who are not seem more interesting.

[Anonymouswizard]

And their main political rivals will be a coalition of tiefling city states, with humans regarded as second-class citizens. They will fight many wars ultimately culminating in mutual annihilation, leaving the other races to rebuild from their wrecked empire. Then begins D&D 4e.

I would, except that I hate the 'higher tech fallen empire in the past' plot point. I know it happened in real life, but nowhere near the level it always does in D&D (I mean seriously, there was not a period of 1000 years where Europe lost the knowledge of the Roman Empire, they just didn't use as much of it).

I also keep Tieflings as human-fiend hybrids (of no more than 1/4 fiend), so the setting is unlikely to have more than two or three Tiefling city states. I'd also have the Dragonborn's chief rival being a different group of Dragonborn, because even if you're the same race it doesn't mean you have to get along.

Anyway, here's one for people, what do people think of a setting with a single race and a set of related cultures? Because I'm planning to do some research on Slavic tribes and using it to create a setting based on them sort of pre-800ce. Do people here think it's better to give a variety of cultures if only a single species exists, or is focus just as good for a setting?

[Logosloki]

I like to have a metric crap-ton of creatures and species in the rulebook, but not necessarily in any given setting. I think that distinction is important.

This is my sentiment as well. A few tomes that have good variety is what I really need. That way I can pick and choose what I need without having to go through effort (I admit this is due to not wanting to devote time to making things when I can find them pre-made).

That being said, and to address the OP, I believe that variety should be shown in fluff rather than crunch. I don't think that every single variation needs to be shown as the presence or absence of extras.

What I would like would be something like the dragonborn of 5th edition of dungeons and dragons where there is several mechanically similar options. On top of that would be something like Appendix B of the 5th ed Monster Manual where there is a collection of archetypes of various challenge rating for making non-player characters. Maybe something like a limited form of templates for 3.P along with the archetypes. Then I want piles of fluff. Give me that sweet sweet ecology of x for as much as you can cram in. I don't need a block for every combination of harpy, I want a couple of short basic modifications to act as a 'skin' to an archetype and then some adventuring hooks, some general knowledge and some attitudes to environment and other beings.

[2D8HP]

Besides Dragonborne, Tieflings, and due to their ears and coloring sometimes Elves, and maybe half-orcs, all the rest of the standard PC "species" fit within human variability.
Dwarves? Gnomes? Halflings? Just short humans with monoculture fluff.

[Honest Tiefling]

I think it really depends on the world itself. If for instance, you have gods coming in and blessing their followers by making them a new race, then you have a reason for a multitude of races. If you have planar escapades happening currently or in the past, okay, you have reasons for several races. Magical mutation, cursed bloodlines, or contact with fey? Good enough.

I think settings with few or many races aren't inherently bad, it's only an issue when nothing is done with it. For me, having a multitude of races without a decent explanation or integration into the setting just smacks of Fantasy Kitchen Sink laziness and worry that the players won't play in the setting unless you have their favorite race in there. It's really weird when you have settings with hundreds of races, but only a handful of them actually affect anything of note and the rest seem to be a footnote at best.

Basically, if you want a lot of races, have a dang reason for them to be there and work them into the setting.

[Democratus]

Speciation makes sense when there are different ecological niches to be filled.

But once you have a creature successfully filling a niche it is difficult to get several others that do the same thing in the same environment.

So we have a sapient tool-using creature, humans. What's the justification to have one - much less 20 - more in the same world? Answer this question and you will also find out how many different races you need.

Several solutions present themselves:

Only one sapient species is native to this world, all the others are from another world
Each sapient species developed on an isolated continent and didn't meet till they were fully developed
The species were artificially created and shoehorned into the world with no regard for the natural process (DEFAULT D&D SETTING)



You can use any of the above, or something entirely different, for your world.

[Mr. Mask]

There's some great feedback, but I'd love your opinions on more specific examples of more monstrous variety.

There are dozens upon dozens of legends of various kinds of chimeras and variants of various creatures. Mer-lions, hideous mermaids, pretty mermaids, cannibal mermaids, mermaids with hideous and dangerous males but beautiful and kind females, mermaid-types with legs, bird mermaids in disguise as pretty girls who turn to stone if they touch the water, etc..

You could, technically, have a satyr and centaur like creature of every combination of animal and human, and then differentiate them by breed, size, and environment. So minotigers, hentaurs, giraffes. With enough combinations, there will get to be the question of how there can be enough circuses to supply them with work. Or whether normal animals are a thing of the past. Some of these variants, obviously, can be far less common than others to reduce that issue. Unless you had some really proactive wizards and deities, you also get to wonder why there are so many utterly divergent creatures of this nature.

[Jay R]

Wizards of the Coast and other companies make money by continuing to produce new content with new spells, new classes, new feats, and yes, new races.

They do this for the money. You're not getting any of the money, and you don't have to use them all.

Introduce a race into your world for one of the following reasons:
1. Your players want it. (If somebody wants to be a gnome illusionist with a grudge against orcs, you need gnomes and orcs.)
2. They provide a specific useful element. (I'll always have humans, dragon, ogres, trolls, and a few others.)
3. You have a plotline in which they would be useful. (Merfolk, or sea elves, are worth introducing only if you have an adventure near or under the water.)

For instance, my current game started with no elves or dwarves. I've decided to introduce dwarves as a race that have been enslaved by the giants in a nearby plane, and the PCs will learn that they exist and can try to rescue them.

The goblins are basically orcs, but semi-animalistic herd animals. They have no tactics on their own, but will do well when led by a strong leader. My PCs were attacked by warg-riding goblins who tried to cut one person out of the group and run off with him. The leader wasn't a goblin, but the alpha-wolf.

I knew from the start that I would eventually introduce the elves from Terry Pratchett's Lord and Ladies.
Elves are wonderful. They provoke wonder.
Elves are marvellous. They cause marvels.
Elves are fantastic. They create fantasies.
Elves are glamorous. They project glamour.
Elves are enchanting. They weave enchantment.
Elves are terrific. They beget terror.
The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake, and if you want to find snakes look for them behind words that have changed their meaning.
No one ever said elves are nice.
Elves are bad.

[Laurent]

Lots of species variants in a setting can be good, but IMHO, it's not their place in core rules. Same for weird monster races.

[2D8HP]

I knew from the start that I would eventually introduce the elves from Terry Pratchett's Lord and Ladies.
Elves are wonderful. They provoke wonder.
Elves are marvellous. They cause marvels.
Elves are fantastic. They create fantasies.
Elves are glamorous. They project glamour.
Elves are enchanting. They weave enchantment.
Elves are terrific. They beget terror.
The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake, and if you want to find snakes look for them behind words that have changed their meaning.
No one ever said elves are nice.
Elves are bad.I loved "Lords and Ladies"! (and "The Wee Free Men"). Man oh man oh man do I want to be a player in that campaign! Sounds Awesome! with some Awesome next to the Awesome that's on top of the Awesome!

[Max_Killjoy]

In my opinion, each species/race should stand on its own, and not be some sort of narrative device, or an exaggeration of a human trait.

[Vitruviansquid]

I'm one for parsimony. If you want the races to come alive, you need to go for height, not breadth.

Let there to be one strong guy race. Let there be one small race. Let there be one magical race. And so on, and so forth.

[Cluedrew]

What are you trying to accomplish?

I mean I generally would not take it to the extreme described in the OP, but sometimes I have a range of sentient beings more colourful than the rainbow, other times I cover a fraction of humanity.

If I wanted to make a D&D style world except "better" from my subjective view, I would cut down on the number of races, and the number of defined variants but fill in lore to make creating differences within those soft boxes easy. So a Wyvernkin from GreyWall might have no rules difference from a Wyvernkin from the Sky's Thorn, but the lore says difference in the two groups which you can use to inform your own decisions about what the character is.