What race would you add to Core this edition or the next?

[Luccan]

An idea that came to mind in relation to the For 5.5/6.0 Edition, what Missing Class would you like to see in the Core? (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?625840-For-5-5-6-0-Edition-what-Missing-Class-would-you-like-to-see-in-the-Core) thread. What race(s) deserve time in the spotlight? I immediately think of Orcs. Seems obvious: they're the other parent of the long recognized PCs the Half-Orcs. Unlike the Tiefling's fiendish ancestor or the Dragonborn's draconic family, they aren't irredeemably evil or hugely powerful (or both) and we've long gotten past the point where Half-Orcs are the intended path for playing a "monstrous" character (see aforementioned Tiefling and Dragonborn). Orcs have also been playable for many editions already, just never in the PHB. So many editions, in fact, that Half-Orcs existing to substitute playing Orcs in the first place is kinda weird when you look at it. Elves are also already playable in Core, so it would even things out with the Half-Elf to fully integrate Orcs as PCs. Honestly, most of the other generally-evil humanoids could also fit in Core, but none of them have the same inherent connection to an already standard core race that is also mirrored in a different standard core race.

[OldTrees1]

Lets start with these:
1) Where is the large / huge giant race?
2) Where is the tiny / diminutive fae race?
3) Where is the undead race?
4) Another race that is not yet another 2 armed biped?
Edit 5) Where is the myconoid or other fungus race? (credit to pothocboots, sorry I forgot)

For extra credit:
1) What is a race with an interesting drawback that changes how they approach everything?
2) What is a race without a physical form?

In other words: Monstrous PCs are great because we don't all want "Humans with hats".

[LudicSavant]

If we have to pick from pre-existing iconic races to make core, I could see orc, goblin, or warforged having enough traction to become a core choice. In fact, I might even go as far as to say that perhaps orc deserves a core spot more than half-orc does.

[loki_ragnarock]

Illithid. Sladdi. Modron.

Lean in. Make it possible to play a truly alien monster instead of "a human, but..." or "yet another kind of elf."

Make Otyughs a playable race, for now and for finally.

[LudicSavant]

I would like to see robust rules for playing non-humanoid races, for sure.

[Luccan]

If we have to pick from pre-existing iconic races to make core, I could see orc, goblin, or warforged having enough traction to become a core choice. In fact, I might even go as far as to say that perhaps orc deserves a core spot more than half-orc does.

The other thread had people suggesting classes that aren't in this edition or don't even exist in any version of D&D, so go wild if you want.

I wouldn't want to kick Half-Orc out, though I would want to differentiate them more. Half-Orc really needs to get a similar amount of human's jack-of-all-trades schtick as Half-Elves. The trouble is Orcs always get written as low-level monsters first, so they never have any interesting abilities to pass half of onto Half-Orcs and they end up really close mechanically.

[ByzantiumBhuka]

Lets start with these:
In other words: Monstrous PCs are great because we don't all want "Humans with hats".

Unfortunately, "humans with hats" are easier to balance than all that.

Consider: a Large or Huge creature would have a reach of 10 feet automatically, and that would lead to issues with a lot of things combat-wise, particularly with regard to skirmishing...not to mention the powerful build trait. Those two traits in and of themselves would make for a decent race, giving little chance to give the large/huge creature a hat at all.

On the other hand, a Tiny creature might not even be able to wield a lot of normal weapons, and those that they could wield would have a 0 ft. reach. Along with the low speed of such creatures, such a race might be quite underpowered.

For the idea with multiple arms, I'd worry a lot about action economy (dual-wielding greatswords? glaive and shield?). WotC probably doesn't want to deal with that sort of thing either.

In short, making anything except a human with a hat can severely upset the sorts of things that PCs are supposed to be able to do and not do. The last time 5e was adventurous like that was in making the Aarakocra-- and we all know how that turned out.

[Alcore]

An idea that came to mind in relation to the For 5.5/6.0 Edition, what Missing Class would you like to see in the Core? (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?625840-For-5-5-6-0-Edition-what-Missing-Class-would-you-like-to-see-in-the-Core) thread. What race(s) deserve time in the spotlight? I immediately think of Orcs. Orc is a good choice. It was my first ever character. DM didn't notice until we left the starter dungeon, and i applied the penalty for lighting, as he kept putting 'half' on in his head; i, however, was completely upfront about it. We collectively shrugged and kept going.


Though this thread begs several questions to be asked. 1) what is D&D? a gaming platform for a fantasy adventure. My basis on this is because it meant "Grayhawk" when i started. 5e chose "Forgotten Realms" and then you still have dragonlance, eberron, dark suns and grim hollow (a new 5e one). Pathfinder? It equals Golarion as i have yet to hear of another publisher making another. Being a 3.5 clone it has been used in most of the above anyways.

2) What would i want of such a platform? To perform as needed in any world... so OldTrees says...


Lets start with these:
1) Where is the large / huge giant race?
2) Where is the tiny / diminutive fae race?
3) Where is the undead race?
4) Another race that is not yet another 2 armed biped?

For extra credit:
1) What is a race with an interesting drawback that changes how they approach everything?
2) What is a race without a physical form?

In other words: Monstrous PCs are great because we don't all want "Humans with hats".
This. So much this.

I want Necropolitan
I want Goliath
I want pixie or nixie
I want some creepy 4 armed dessert bug
I want a harpy. Not a siren; a harpy

I want Hagspawn

I want options and dials to help me craft my worlds. Yet all flavor text assumes Forgotten Realms (a setting i loathe), mechanics even assume that (extra credit where it is due; occasionally you are handed a dial for other places). 3.5 SRD had it right; just present the race and no flavor as the GM can add it himself. Forgotten Realms setting primer can do what the core books are doing to cut down on bloat.

[OldTrees1]

Unfortunately, "humans with hats" are easier to balance than all that.

Consider: a Large or Huge creature would have a reach of 10 feet automatically, and that would lead to issues with a lot of things combat-wise, particularly with regard to skirmishing...not to mention the powerful build trait. Those two traits in and of themselves would make for a decent race, giving little chance to give the large/huge creature a hat at all.

On the other hand, a Tiny creature might not even be able to wield a lot of normal weapons, and those that they could wield would have a 0 ft. reach. Along with the low speed of such creatures, such a race might be quite underpowered.

For the idea with multiple arms, I'd worry a lot about action economy (dual-wielding greatswords? glaive and shield?). WotC probably doesn't want to deal with that sort of thing either.

In short, making anything except a human with a hat can severely upset the sorts of things that PCs are supposed to be able to do and not do. The last time 5e was adventurous like that was in making the Aarakocra-- and we all know how that turned out.

Is it harder to make an actually diverse set of races? Yes, yes it is. However it is in high demand.

Large: Well it depends on the race system the edition uses.
In 5E reach is not very good. It helps with skirmishing and hurts control. Yes a large race would probably have +2 Str and Powerful Build. Honestly you could make Goliath Large size and only need to remove 1 ability.
In 6E, the edition could be designed to meet the challenge.

Tiny: Oh my, a race with a downside that would have them behave in a qualitatively different manner? That would provide even more room to flesh out the race as something interesting. The main concern is balancing the upside so that it has antisynergy with the means of ignoring the downside.

Not "2 armed biped" does not need to mean 3 armed biped. Also multiple arms does not need to mean multiattack. However we already see Lizardfolk address a bite attack. Also loki_ragnarock raises a good example in the Otyugh (and Modron).

You see 5E Aarakocra as a mistake. I see 3E Raptorian as a success that improved upon the 5E Aarakocra before it was printed.

Yes Human with a hat is really easy to design. But if that is all races are, then why not have only Variant Human and a bunch of hat feats. A great feature of races is being able to play something other than a human. See examples below. So while it is harder to design, it is worth it.


Illithid. Sladdi. Modron.

Lean in. Make it possible to play a truly alien monster instead of "a human, but..." or "yet another kind of elf."

Make Otyughs a playable race, for now and for finally.


I would like to see robust rules for playing non-humanoid races, for sure.



I want Necropolitan
I want Goliath
I want pixie or nixie
I want some creepy 4 armed dessert bug
I want a harpy. Not a siren; a harpy

I want Hagspawn

[thoroughlyS]

There are not enough small races. I want to see goblins and kobolds. Maybe even do what 4E did, and include a pixie race.

[Alcore]

And it isn't even that i want all the races anyways. Most settings i make or run fall in a rare/low magic spectrum. So my races often look like;

Human

Tiefling (face it; someone will eventually summon a succubus for fun

Aasimar (often a 'chosen one' and rarely natural due to oddly shaped angels)

And... Hagspawn (i like the Golarion biology where hags breed Hagspawn. Often for tools at a later time, fill out a coven, ect. Some are never turned into hags. Often a full third of a hamlet of mine is directly descendant from a nearby coven. Hagspawn, themselves, don't breed true so it isn't always noticeable)


And that's it... usually

Elves are fey (if present) and core books cannot support it without tinkering. I have doomed everyone to scouring other books (some in 3rd party) to find the races in the setting if i don't provide them. There are already a great many races (several dozen in the planeshift supplements) but they are so spread out... perhaps an Advanced Rage Guide instead?

I just want choices.

[Amnestic]

If tiefling and aasimar stay core, then I'd add Genasi to round out the planar-touched humanoids.

Assuming 6e kept notable racial differences (which is a 50/50 assumption to me) I'd also strip back half-orc/half-elf as specific choices and instead add rules for making your own halfblood races. Half-goblin half-gnome, half-dwarf half-human, half-elf half-orc, etc. It might end up washing into 'custom lineage' rules with a pseudo-point buy system for features.

Which would no doubt be used by some optimisers to make something really good but be pretty cool otherwise.

[Aett_Thorn]

I would love to have a version of DnD that had a core setting that didn’t focus on humans at all. Drop them from the core list, along with anything that is half-human. Adjust the other races to fill in broader niches in design and bring in the goblin, orc, hobgoblin, and bugbear as valid core races.

Stop having humans as the default race that you’re trying to build around, and have more diverse nations and issues to deal with.

[Sception]

I do want to see rules for more divergent races - tiny, large, non-bipeds, etc. However, I don't think 'core' is the right place for that. To be a good core race, the race has to work for 'standard' play. Pre-published adventures without significant modification. Standard gameplay modes. Usable (if maybe not optimal) for all the other core player content options - classes, weapons (yes small races are already an exception here and imo problematic for it), feats, mounts, etc.

Non-standard shaped and sized races may not be able to participate in standard dungeons or game play styles due to just flat out not fitting through the tighter corridors of standard dungeons. Or they might not be able to use ladders, or communicate with typical default npcs, and so on. Non-Corporeal races might not be able to interact with weapon using classes, or might trivialize adventures by walking through solid walls to skip to the end. Flying races could be problematic for similar reasons.

Again, I want rules for such races to exist, I think 5e in particular has been far too conservative in terms of what sorts of races they've presented in non-core sources that by all rights should be allowed to get more experimental. But such races need to come with DM warnings that campaigns will need to be significantly more tailored around their abilities than for PCs using more typical races, and to me that's a sign that they aren't appropriate for core specifically.

[diplomancer]

I would add to core Half-Elves, Half-Orcs, and Gnomes. I'd keep Tieflings and Dragonborn as "non-Core" :p

[KorvinStarmast]

Unfortunately, "humans with hats" are easier to balance than all that.

Consider: a Large or Huge creature would have a reach of 10 feet automatically, and that would lead to issues with a lot of things combat-wise, particularly with regard to skirmishing...not to mention the powerful build trait.

Not to mention getting an additional damage die for their weapon (see the MM for how damage goes up for size increase) and being able to use weapons from large/huge creatures (see Merrow's harpoon as an example). They had to make the goliath "medium" even though they are 7+ feet tall, or they'd have run into that same mechanical problem.


Really, just axe all the half things... and refluff the other stuff not named "half" but is still born from humans. Humans need not breed with every thing in the multiverse. But they do, it's why they are so successful as a species. They sow them wild oats, just as dragons did/do.

(I am making a veiled reference to the Witcher novels, third or fourth book, here ... )

[JellyPooga]

I would rather see less races, but more diverse sub-races or cultures within them, than adding more weird-and-wonderful races like warforged or undead. On the flipside of not wanting the weird and wonderful, I would much rather see Lizardfolk as an additional "monstrous" race than Orcs. The latter have a long history of having a very negative stereotype that for many is hard to overcome for PC races (hence the half-orc being an acceptable medium), whereas Lizardfolk have less of that stereotype and as such have much more room for re-imaging, as well as potential for incorporating the likes of Dragonborn and Kobolds into their ranks as sub-cultures of an overall "reptilian" or "draconic" Race. So, for example, we might have a Race lineup that looks something like this:

Human (the adaptable)
- Half-Elf
- Half-Orc
- Aasimar (yes, Aasimar are half-human, half-Celestials...fight me)
- Tiefling (see my comment on Aasimar, but with Fiends)
- Genasi

Khazad (the durable)
- Dwarf
- Gnome
- Halfling

Fey (the capricious)
- Elf
- Sprite
- Fairy

Dracons (the lizardy guys)
- Dragonborn
- Kobold
- Lizardfolk

Orog (the greenskins)
- Orc
- Goblin
- Hobgoblin

[KorvinStarmast]

Re: What race would you add to Core this edition or the next? First of all, I'd remove: Tiefling, Yuan Ti, Drow, Half Orc, and Aarakocra.

Also removed would be Halfling and Gnome.

I'd add:
Triton, Orc, all of the Genasi from EE, and (though I personally don't care for them in the game as PCs) Kobold - because the name of the game is Dungeons and Dragons and D&D kobolds are directly related to dragons (The original German folk critter isn't dragon blooded (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobold)). But, PC Kobolds are medium-sized like all other PCs and are more like dragonborn. I mean heck: if you are gonna mutate a kobold from what a kobold is, mutate it up to medium sized as was done for dwarf. Rules simplicity is part of what's going on here; medium creatures as the "framework around which many mechanical rules are built" is kinda obvious. So stop cluttering things up.

The kobold ... is a sprite stemming from Germanic mythology and surviving into modern times in German folklore. Although usually invisible, a kobold can materialize in the form of an animal, fire, a human being, and a candle. The most common depictions of kobolds show them as humanlike figures the size of small children. Kobolds who live in human homes wear the clothing of peasants; those who live in mines are hunched and ugly; kobolds who live on ships smoke pipes and wear sailor clothing. Legends tell of three major types of kobolds. Most commonly, the creatures are house spirits of ambivalent nature; while they sometimes perform domestic chores, they play malicious tricks if insulted or neglected. Famous kobolds of this type include King Goldemar, Heinzelmann, and Hödekin. In some regions, kobolds are known by local names, such as the Galgenmännlein of southern Germany and the Heinzelmännchen of Cologne. Another type of kobold haunts underground places, such as mines. A third kind of kobold, the Klabautermann, lives aboard ships and helps sailors. A lot more like a traditional goblin, gremlin, or bogart than a mini-dragon.

While I like Tabaxi and Aasimar, I can live without them, and if I dump tieflings I also dump aasimar. All of them shape changers in the Eberron book? There's the file 13, over there. Doppelgangers are monsters, and all of those "races" are doppelganger light. And Minotaurs are a monster; there is a Mister Theseus on line 3 who wants to have a word with whomever came up with that mess.

Warforged as core? Very, very tempting. Mad wizards experiment and this is a result.

Get rid of the "doesn't need sleep and doesn't need to eat" and we may make it fit PC races. (Also, gimme a break on the elf "trance" rubbish: elves are old. We old people need our sleep. :smallyuk: ) The rest rules need to apply equally to all PC races.
(I'll not get into my rant on feats being available to all races; get rid of 'racial' feats except prodigy, and make it (,erged with skilled) into one feat available for all races.

Satyrs from Theros: tempting, but I think it needs a rebalance.

OK, I'll wipe the foam off of my lips, need more coffee.

[OldTrees1]

I do want to see rules for more divergent races - tiny, large, non-bipeds, etc. However, I don't think 'core' is the right place for that. To be a good core race, the race has to work for 'standard' play. Pre-published adventures without significant modification. Standard gameplay modes. Usable (if maybe not optimal) for all the other core player content options - classes, weapons (yes small races are already an exception here and imo problematic for it), feats, mounts, etc.

3E had 2 solutions to that:
1) Monstrous PC races were in the 3.5 Monster Manual rather than the PHB. That let you have your "humans with hats" in the PHB.
2) Savage Species was an book about advanced racial options.

However we should be careful we don't restrict 'standard' play too far otherwise we only get human fighters.

[KorvinStarmast]

3E had 2 solutions to that:
1) Monstrous PC races were in the 3.5 Monster Manual rather than the PHB. That let you have your "humans with hats" in the PHB.
2) Savage Species was an book about advanced racial options.

However we should be careful we don't restrict 'standard' play too far otherwise we only get human fighters.
Which brings me back to druids. Dump the class (as much as I dearly love druids) and make the Nature Cleric a sub class (no heavy armor) but the channel divinity is where the shape changing into beasts kicks in. Bring selected druid spells into the cleric or ranger list and make them available to that sub class, and voila: one more piece of clutter is gone.

[ScoutTrooper]

Beastly / Animalistic-humaniod races, like the 3.5 Vanara from Orintal Adventures. We could almost have a humanoid for every zodiac animal. We already have Centuar for horse, Tabaxi/Lenion for Cat/Tiger, Aarakocra for Bird/Eagle, Yuan-Ti for Snake. Why not complete it, and then throw out a "Wuxia" source book?

[Xervous]

Beastly / Animalistic-humaniod races, like the 3.5 Vanara from Orintal Adventures. We could almost have a humanoid for every zodiac animal. We already have Centuar for horse, Tabaxi/Lenion for Cat/Tiger, Aarakocra for Bird/Eagle, Yuan-Ti for Snake. Why not complete it, and then throw out a "Wuxia" source book?

Name it Glinting Fang, Iron Claw?

[Dragonsonthemap]

Orc, goblin, and aasimar are the obvious additions with how the game seems to be looked at popularly these days. I'd like more animal people, especially lizardfolk and tortles, and kobolds, but those strike me as longer shots.

[togapika]

Goblins for sure. Also I'd say a fey race of some kind with subraces to flavor to different kinds of fey. Also I know it's a long shot, but I'd like a race that feels more descended from genies. I know in some editions that was the flavor for Genesai, while in others they're just descended from some kind of elemental ancestor, but in either case it doesn't feel super genie-ish for some reason.

[Zaile]

Beastly / Animalistic-humaniod races, like the 3.5 Vanara from Orintal Adventures. We could almost have a humanoid for every zodiac animal. We already have Centuar for horse, Tabaxi/Lenion for Cat/Tiger, Aarakocra for Bird/Eagle, Yuan-Ti for Snake. Why not complete it, and then throw out a "Wuxia" source book?

I second this. Kinda like the "anthropomorphic" ones from 3.5.

Looks like 6e racial stat bonuses will look like "You get +2 to one stat and +1 to another" anyway, so racial fluff and abilities will be the new focus.

I'd also like to see https://scrapsculptures.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/terminator-41.jpg

[Rfkannen]

as much as I REALLY want pixie and ogre races, I do not think hey should be in the core rulebook.

I would scrap half-orc, add full orc and some rules for half races. Maybe add goblin as well.

[TyGuy]

Orcs are creations of Gruumsh and it's ok to still run them a intrinsically evil.

For 5.5 I would put in the original 9 races with all the 5e subraces for those 9.

Then I would add aasimar to counter balance tiefling.

Wilden to add a fey & plant humanoid.

Firbolg for another nature themed option.

Shade for an edgy pseudo undead option, and a shadowfel option to contrast the fey options.

Possibly shifter or hengeyokai to provide multiple animalistic options in one race.

[Dienekes]

Consider: a Large or Huge creature would have a reach of 10 feet automatically, and that would lead to issues with a lot of things combat-wise, particularly with regard to skirmishing...not to mention the powerful build trait.

Not to mention getting an additional damage die for their weapon (see the MM for how damage goes up for size increase) and being able to use weapons from large/huge creatures (see Merrow's harpoon as an example). They had to make the goliath "medium" even though they are 7+ feet tall, or they'd have run into that same mechanical problem.


I mean Fantasy Craft managed to have Giants, and Large sized Dragons as playable races and they ended up being pretty balanced all things considered.

Of course FC was way more crunchy than 5e to make everything work. I don’t think it was any worse than 3.5 though. Though admittedly the FC rule book is a pain to navigate through.

[Sigreid]

I'd kind of like to see a straight up ogre.

[Zevox]

Orcs makes sense, I could agree to that. The first one that came to mind for me though is Aasimar. It was honestly very weird to me when I first picked up 5E to see Tieflings included as a PHB race, but not Aasimars. Seems like they ought to be a package deal, I really can't understand why they picked just one but not the other.

Beyond that, I'm always pretty favorably inclined towards Genasi, personally. And with the way my group is I'm sure everyone would be happy if Goblins were included.

[Sigreid]

Orcs makes sense, I could agree to that. The first one that came to mind for me though is Aasimar. It was honestly very weird to me when I first picked up 5E to see Tieflings included as a PHB race, but not Aasimars. Seems like they ought to be a package deal, I really can't understand why they picked just one but not the other.

Beyond that, I'm always pretty favorably inclined towards Genasi, personally. And with the way my group is I'm sure everyone would be happy if Goblins were included.

I think Aasimar, including the version in the DMG are stronger than tieflings.

[Zevox]

I think Aasimar, including the version in the DMG are stronger than tieflings.
...is that supposed to be an explanation for why they weren't in the PHB? Because it makes no sense as one. If there was any concern about their power level, they could just reduce it, since they hadn't printed anything yet at the time. So there's no reason that would drive any decision about whether or not to include a race in the PHB.

[da newt]

Meh - in my opinion spending a little time with the custom lineage rules to flesh it out a bit and ensure true balance, and include it in core = done. Everyone can make whatever they want by skinning their PC however they like but the mechanics / stats are well bounded and balanced.

Pixie, Troll, Undead, Furry, Monster, Angle, Devil, Aberration, ... sure you are only limited by your imagination and the custom lineage rules - enjoy your bliss.

I'd also like to see Tiny and Large size added as custom lineage options, but bounded by Small and Med rules for weapons, damage, reach, ST, movement, etc - you occupy more or less space, but are mechanically balanced with Med/Small.

Now you can play a Xorn.

[JellyPooga]

Everyone can make whatever they want by skinning their PC however they like but the mechanics / stats are well bounded and balanced.

I don't like this, because there are plenty of modular systems that allow you to "build-a-bearrace" and D&D isn't and (IMO) shouldn't become one of them. I further disagree that such modular options should, if they exist at all, be in the PHB; as a DMG optional rule, yeah, perhaps, but the PHB should be presenting the expected norm of the game, not the weird and whacky. It's worth bearing in mind that the races presented to the players in the most basic rulebook (i.e. the PHB) as "playable options" are the ones that the game is saying "most folk can expect to interact with these races on the regular, so much so that if you play as one, it won't be considered outside the norm for any NPC's you meet". If you start including ogres and pixies and xorn in that category, then it takes away a certain amount of their rarity and to an extent their strangeness or mystique and while making the world more multicultural is not necessarily a bad thing, it is also a significant change in focus of the D&D experience. A game where "Oh, it's just a xorn" is something I could expect just any NPC to say is a very different game to the one presented by current and previous editions of D&D.

An approach that covers a range of basics, giving players a wide spectrum of options, but with variant rules to explore further is a good way to introduce players to a system without frontloading their learning experience too much (like GURPS does; don't get me wrong, I like GURPS, but it's learning curve is practically vertical).

I would be pleasantly surprised if they introduced Large/Tiny races and it's not without precedent; Earthdawn/Shadowrun are good examples of systems that have a wide variety of creature types/sizes working alongside one another. I would be surprised though, because Large creatures in D&D err on the side of monstrous as opposed to civilised, as well as fitting poorly into your typical 5ft corridor, making them poor candidates for PC races and Tiny ones come with their own set of preconceptions and problems in a D&D style adventure that typically don't exist to the same degree in those other games that include them, because they have different expectations or styles of play. Keeping such creature types on the fringe of expected play is more in-keeping with the D&D idiom.

[OldTrees1]

Meh - in my opinion spending a little time with the custom lineage rules to flesh it out a bit and ensure true balance, and include it in core = done. Everyone can make whatever they want by skinning their PC however they like but the mechanics / stats are well bounded and balanced.

Pixie, Troll, Undead, Furry, Monster, Angle, Devil, Aberration, ... sure you are only limited by your imagination and the custom lineage rules - enjoy your bliss.

I'd also like to see Tiny and Large size added as custom lineage options, but bounded by Small and Med rules for weapons, damage, reach, ST, movement, etc - you occupy more or less space, but are mechanically balanced with Med/Small.

Now you can play a Xorn.

I don't see how custom lineage handles mechanical differences like Pixie (tiny), Troll (large & regeneration), Undead (undead qualities, and some undead have something extra like ghoulish touch).

I will grant you custom lineages can handle anthropomorphic animals, angels, and devils, provided they are 2 armed bipeds.

Monster and Aberration are rather broad categories in that list. Sure custom lineages can be refluffed as aberration, but only if the aberration is mechanically comparable to a human. Take Xorn as an example, I can't create a earth burrowing tremorsensing elemental using the custom lineages, even if I use custom lineage variant human and select as related a feat as possible. At best I would have a xorn, with a missing arm, that can't travel normally, and can't see normally.

Or are you referring to after custom lineages are expanded? Allowing for a build your own race that is capable of representing monstrous races like xorn (120 degree symmetry, earth glide, tremorsense) and ghoul (undead, paralyzing touch, hunger)?

I did value how Savage Species helped lay out, for DMs, how one might balance and evaluate a custom race. I doubt that could be fleshed out well enough for Core (even when I am think monster manual rather than PHB), but you could do a part 1 in Core. However concrete examples lower the cost to entry, so I also valued when the Monster Manual had rules for monstrous races.


...is that supposed to be an explanation for why they weren't in the PHB? Because it makes no sense as one. If there was any concern about their power level, they could just reduce it, since they hadn't printed anything yet at the time. So there's no reason that would drive any decision about whether or not to include a race in the PHB.

Honestly I think Aasimar was in the DMG merely because it was a trivial example of creating a race.

[pothocboots]

Oldtrees1 already put down a lot of what I'd like that I'd expect some amount of support for.
One that's possibly missing is Myconoids, I think they could do well in core.

My more outlandish races which would be nice, but perhaps a bit much for core... or even a Savage Species:
An intelligent shade of the color blue.
Fungus spores.
A swarm of insects.
The notion of justice.
A pair of trousers.
Bread.

[OldTrees1]

Those outlandish races would be fun races, although I agree a couple would be a bit too much for an Advanced Races book (like Savage Species was).

A swarm race and a (normally inanimate) item race could fit into an Advanced Races book quite nicely.

Something like the Hooloovoo (An intelligent shade of the color blue) would be harder to figure out (partially because I don't know enough about them). Is it a being made up of light of a particular frequency? Maybe start with an Air Elemental and tweak from there?

PS: Added Myconoids to my list. Sorry for forgetting them.

[carnomancy]

Orcs and goblins feel like they belong in there. No, they absolutely belong there. The core races always lifted from Tolkien. It's just odd they left out the best picks.

As a personal pick, I'd nominate the Lizardfolk just because they feel like such a DnDism. There's so many varieties and they're spread across so many campaign settings. DnD just loves their walking talking lizards. They're objectively correct in that love too.

I'd like to see a touch ups done to the dragon born if they were going to continue with them. That being said, I think Kobolds are the better dragon race.

[da newt]

"I don't see how custom lineage handles mechanical differences like Pixie (tiny), Troll (large & regeneration), Undead (undead qualities, and some undead have something extra like ghoulish touch)."

- I was arguing that there should NOT be any mechanical differences added for all the interesting custom lineages that folks wanted to play. In order to preserve balance but allow folks to go wild with their imaginations, my proposal is that you can reskin anything you want so that it looks like ANYTHING but that it doesn't change the mechanics at all.

A Tiny Pixie would function exactly the same as any Small Humanoid, the only differences would be that it takes up less space and has gossamer wings (but cannot fly). Now you can RP to your heart's content, but the game mechanics are unaffected. You can play a Large Marilith with a snake tail and 6 arms but your action economy, speed, reach, etc are mechanically the same as any custom lineage Med humanoid - no extras.

While creating all sorts of new playable races with new cool abilities would be fun, the balance challenges and resulting bloat/complexity of resources and rules etc are too much of a down side (in my opinion).

I'm of the opinion that when there is a next edition, it's primary goals ought to be to streamline, simplify, reduce, and balance. 5e is suffering from too much of everything, and adding more books only compounds things. I am a fan of the K.I.S.S. principle.

[OldTrees1]

"I don't see how custom lineage handles mechanical differences like Pixie (tiny), Troll (large & regeneration), Undead (undead qualities, and some undead have something extra like ghoulish touch)."

- I was arguing that there should NOT be any mechanical differences added for all the interesting custom lineages that folks wanted to play. In order to preserve balance but allow folks to go wild with their imaginations, my proposal is that you can reskin anything you want so that it looks like ANYTHING but that it doesn't change the mechanics at all.

A Tiny Pixie would function exactly the same as any Small Humanoid, the only differences would be that it takes up less space and has gossamer wings (but cannot fly). Now you can RP to your heart's content, but the game mechanics are unaffected. You can play a Large Marilith with a snake tail and 6 arms but your action economy, speed, reach, etc are mechanically the same as any custom lineage Med humanoid - no extras.

While creating all sorts of new playable races with new cool abilities would be fun, the balance challenges and resulting bloat/complexity of resources and rules etc are too much of a down side (in my opinion).

I'm of the opinion that when there is a next edition, it's primary goals ought to be to streamline, simplify, reduce, and balance. 5e is suffering from too much of everything, and adding more books only compounds things. I am a fan of the K.I.S.S. principle.

I see. I find it jarring that you are suggesting intentionally having the mechanics contradict the fluff. That would not be a solution for my use case, just like reducing the classes to just Barbarian would not satisfy the use case of someone wanting to play something other than a Barbarian (say a Mage). If the fluff implies there would be a significant mechanical difference, I think there should be one (albeit a balanced difference). An undead that is alive and not undead is not undead. There is a limit to how far you can refluff, that limit is when the game mechanics constantly contradict you and undo the refluffing.

I understand you are a fan of the KISS principle, but you don't have to restrict down to "one size fits all". I prefer the layered approach. You have the base case (human), the variations on the base case (humans with hats), and the abnormal cases(actually interesting species). That way each group can select what works best for them.

[JellyPooga]

A Tiny Pixie would function exactly the same as any Small Humanoid, the only differences would be that it takes up less space and has gossamer wings (but cannot fly). Now you can RP to your heart's content, but the game mechanics are unaffected. You can play a Large Marilith with a snake tail and 6 arms but your action economy, speed, reach, etc are mechanically the same as any custom lineage Med humanoid - no extras.

While from a balance point of view this makes a lot of sense, from the narrative point of view it makes zero sense.

If I'm playing a winged pixie, you'd better damn well expect me to want to be able to fly, because that's what pixies do. If I can't, then I need to come up with a reason why not. If the reason is anything along the lines of "only level 10 pixies can fly", or "only pixies with X ability or Y class can fly" then I'm calling bull on it...because that's exactly what it is; an arbitrary excuse that exists only to preserve game balance.

Roleplay first. Game second. It's in the name. Don't sacrifice one to improve the other.

[OldTrees1]

While from a balance point of view this makes a lot of sense, from the narrative point of view it makes zero sense.

If I'm playing a winged pixie, you'd better damn well expect me to want to be able to fly, because that's what pixies do. If I can't, then I need to come up with a reason why not. If the reason is anything along the lines of "only level 10 pixies can fly", or "only pixies with X ability or Y class can fly" then I'm calling bull on it...because that's exactly what it is; an arbitrary excuse that exists only to preserve game balance.

Roleplay first. Game second. It's in the name. Don't sacrifice one to improve the other.

Personally I liked how the 3E Raptoran wings matured over time. 1st level Raptoran are not full adults yet and thus their wings have not fully developed, but the wings still exist and thus still do something. It showed the character developing greater strength in those muscles over time. Similar to how 5E Dragonborn breath weapon gets stronger over time.

Since you explicitly called out "only level 10 pixies can fly" as something that would break verisimilitude for you, I doubt you will share my appreciation of the 3E Raptoran wings growth, but I thought I should mention it as an example.

[anthon]

aasimar should be paired with teifling always.

Genasi have been a pretty neato 4 elements race.


A giant should be able to do giant stuff, like wield giant weapons (a tragedy of 5e mechanics for the goliath) and have far better than normal strength maximums.

Be it poison immunity, herbology, fire resistance, or the power to breathe in a vacuum, having some unique environmental advantage from your choice of race is what separates that race choice from a Glamour spell.

[anthon]

Lets start with these:
1) Where is the large / huge giant race?
2) Where is the tiny / diminutive fae race?
3) Where is the undead race?
4) Another race that is not yet another 2 armed biped?
Edit 5) Where is the myconoid or other fungus race? (credit to pothocboots, sorry I forgot)

For extra credit:
1) What is a race with an interesting drawback that changes how they approach everything?
2) What is a race without a physical form?

In other words: Monstrous PCs are great because we don't all want "Humans with hats".
everybody always goes with pixie, but i think faerie would be more interesting,

or perhaps some diminutive tiny race with subraces including both? fleetlings and quicklings for instance, are tiny high speed races.

so you'd have a magical slow flyer, a less magical fast flyer, and perhaps a non-flying high movement rate race rounding out the three?

[JellyPooga]

Personally I liked how the 3E Raptoran wings matured over time. 1st level Raptoran are not full adults yet and thus their wings have not fully developed, but the wings still exist and thus still do something. It showed the character developing greater strength in those muscles over time. Similar to how 5E Dragonborn breath weapon gets stronger over time.

Since you explicitly called out "only level 10 pixies can fly" as something that would break verisimilitude for you, I doubt you will share my appreciation of the 3E Raptoran wings growth, but I thought I should mention it as an example.

It was my dislike for the Raptoran flight progression that I was thinking of while writing that post!

The problem is that level =/= age or maturity, except for Raptorans. It means there are no flying Raptorans that aren't also independantly more powerful characters. It's a bad piece of game balancing that creates issues with the game world; it means all lvl.1 Raptorans are adolescent or immature, which isn't the case for any other playable race. It doesn't fit the same model that other races follow.

If all other races followed a similar "racial traits that improve over time" model, I might be more on board, but at the end of the day if I'm playing a race that flies, I don't want that to be limited until someone claps so I can "earn my wings"; I want to be able to fly and possibly even get better at it, not just be a bit better at jumping because I'm the equivalent of a gangling, uncoordinated teenager whose voice is breaking...despite also being a badass and independent adventurer. Do you see the disconnect?

[OldTrees1]

everybody always goes with pixie, but i think faerie would be more interesting,

or perhaps some diminutive tiny race with subraces including both? fleetlings and quicklings for instance, are tiny high speed races.

so you'd have a magical slow flyer, a less magical fast flyer, and perhaps a non-flying high movement rate race rounding out the three?

Obviously you know more about those races than me. I like those ideas.


It was my dislike for the Raptoran flight progression that I was thinking of while writing that post!

The problem is that level =/= age or maturity, except for Raptorans. It means there are no flying Raptorans that aren't also independantly more powerful characters. It's a bad piece of game balancing that creates issues with the game world; it means all lvl.1 Raptorans are adolescent or immature, which isn't the case for any other playable race. It doesn't fit the same model that other races follow.

If all other races followed a similar "racial traits that improve over time" model, I might be more on board, but at the end of the day if I'm playing a race that flies, I don't want that to be limited until someone claps so I can "earn my wings"; I want to be able to fly and possibly even get better at it, not just be a bit better at jumping because I'm the equivalent of a gangling, uncoordinated teenager whose voice is breaking...despite also being a badass and independent adventurer. Do you see the disconnect?

Yes, I see that disconnect and your dislike makes sense. I still like that model (glide at 1st, fly at higher), but that difference in preferences is okay and just motivates us to find a model that accommodates both.

Edit: If 6E increased the base value of a race, then some races (like humans) would have more cultural features (proficiencies for example) while other races (like faerie) would have more species features (the interesting bits). That would also allow for variation between 1 strong feature vs many weaker features. That would allow balanced flight at 1st level at the cost of 1st level being a bit stronger than before.

[da newt]

I completely understand your point of view, and I wish that the game could support it, but I think we have seen that the game struggles to keep balance as it tries to accommodate new features, races, abilities, etc. 5e is experiencing a glut of rules / ability / class / subclass / race options.

My proposal is simple, uninteresting mechanically, but also efficient, balanced, and wide open for players to create the PC they want (all the flavor and RP you could ask for) with only a few mechanical restrictions to ensure balance - a few boundary conditions. I acknowledge that my proposal is nothing more than 'unlimited hats.'

I'd love to see a complete Xanthar's sized book that was nothing but races and classes with tons of (well balanced) options, but I doubt that is in the realm of the possible. Look at how problematic conjuring pixies is, how Aarokocra mess up a game, how Yuan Ti aren't allowed at many tables, hexblade dips are the root of all evil ...

[Luccan]

Honestly, I think the reason both Eladrin and Aasimar aren't in the PHB is because they're familiar to those who know D&D, making them an easy example of race/subrace building. If I were to run a core only game in 5e, I'd absolutely let people use them (I'd encourage the later versions otherwise).

[Wraith]

Distinct races are so 1970's, man. Fully embrace the rules in Tasha's Cauldron and go one more step: Everyone starts with +0 stats and no abilities, and then they point-buy perks to build whatever traits they want, however you want, and slap whatever name/label on it that you like. You want +2 STR and be Large sized then call yourself a Goliath? Cool, have at it. You want +2DEX, Clawed Hands and Water Breathing for a Feral Triton? You want Wings and Innate spells and be a demonic Gnome? Golden Rule is in effect, just don't take the piss. :smalltongue:

Great, that's you now. Everyone gets the same amount of points to spend, just like point buying stats, so no one is more or less weird and freakish than anyone else. :smallbiggrin:

[SirCupcake_0]

Maybe not to Core, but I'm surprised and irritated we don't yet have a dog-people race

It's so bad, especially since we have a big cat/housecat race (Leonin and Tabaxi), and yet no dog. The closest thing we had to dog was a Gnoll, and WotC just changed them from humanoid to fiend, and it feels like they're trying to make it so you can't really play a Gnoll PC. :*(

[diplomancer]

Maybe not to Core, but I'm surprised and irritated we don't yet have a dog-people race

It's so bad, especially since we have a big cat/housecat race (Leonin and Tabaxi), and yet no dog. The closest thing we had to dog was a Gnoll, and WotC just changed them from humanoid to fiend, and it feels like they're trying to make it so you can't really play a Gnoll PC. :*(

Just go old school and say kobolds are dog people; they even have pack tactics ;)

[TigerT20]

Maybe not to Core, but I'm surprised and irritated we don't yet have a dog-people race

It's so bad, especially since we have a big cat/housecat race (Leonin and Tabaxi), and yet no dog. The closest thing we had to dog was a Gnoll, and WotC just changed them from humanoid to fiend, and it feels like they're trying to make it so you can't really play a Gnoll PC. :*(

Technically, hyenas are more closely related to cats then dogs which would make them another cat race.

[Wraith]

Hyena are neither feline nor canine - they belong to a separate Family/Genus called Hyaena. Which just proves the problem, really - weird, non-conformist creatures get a D&D race before dogs. :smalltongue:

And rats/rodents, for that matter. I can think of several other big franchises - Warhammer Fantasy, White Wolf, etc - who have a 'rat-people' player race that could also be fun in D&D. Maybe they'll both turn up in a future expansion - they've done Ravnica and Theros as books and various Planeshifts for similar Magic the Gathering settings, if they did Kamigawa at some point then they could include both Nezumi (rat people) and Kitsune (fox/dog people) so that could be fun.

[Ettina]

I want the race system to be reworked to make half-whatevers and "X raised by Y" easily created in core. Each race should have two genetic components and a cultural component. X raised by Y gets X's genetic components and Y's cultural component. Half-X/Half-Y gets one genetic component from X, one from Y, and the cultural component of whichever race raised them. You could also make humans more interesting by having the boring versatility be the genetic components and giving each of the different human cultures (Cali****e, Illuskan, Rashemi, etc) distinct cultural components.

Which means that I also want to remove half-elf and half-orc as distinct PHB races, and have them be made the same way as any other half-whatever. (Half-monster races like aasimar or tiefling or genasi, where the other half isn't a playable PC race, would need their own system. Maybe we could just give them one genetic component for being half-whatevermonster, and the other comes from their non-monstrous half.) And let's stop assuming that every half-whatever is half-human. Why can't you play a half-elf/half-orc by core?

PS: seriously, the censor can't handle a core Forgotten Realms race's name just because it happens to contain a swear word?

[OldTrees1]

I want the race system to be reworked to make half-whatevers and "X raised by Y" easily created in core. Each race should have two genetic components and a cultural component. X raised by Y gets X's genetic components and Y's cultural component. Half-X/Half-Y gets one genetic component from X, one from Y, and the cultural component of whichever race raised them. You could also make humans more interesting by having the boring versatility be the genetic components and giving each of the different human cultures (Cali****e, Illuskan, Rashemi, etc) distinct cultural components.

What if one species has more genetic components than another? For example I suspect an Otyugh species would have more genetic components than a Human. If raised in a different environment would they keep all their genetic components and learn cultural components until topped off? And if vice versa then if the glass was not full, they could gain some generic cultural features like +1 skill.

An Otyugh raised in a Orc settlement might get only some of that settlement's cultural traits.
A Human raised in a Yuan Ti settlement might get all that settlement's cultural traits, and pick up a cultural trait from some of the prisoners.

[Warder]

I wouldn't add races to Core for a new edition, I'd remove races. Tieflings, Drow and Dragonborn would be the ones I'd axe, and then add them in a supplement later on.

But I'm keenly aware that doesn't align with what WotC is doing, or what the majority of players want, so no need to point it out. :P

[Dienekes]

What if one species has more genetic components than another? For example I suspect an Otyugh species would have more genetic components than a Human. If raised in a different environment would they keep all their genetic components and learn cultural components until topped off? And if vice versa then if the glass was not full, they could gain some generic cultural features like +1 skill.

An Otyugh raised in a Orc settlement might get only some of that settlement's cultural traits.
A Human raised in a Yuan Ti settlement might get all that settlement's cultural traits, and pick up a cultural trait from some of the prisoners.

One would have to assume that the species traits would need to be grouped together into two easily divided chunks.

It may not work for an Otyugh, but considering it’s not even a playable race anyway that seems an odd one to focus on.

Though the Yuan Ti raised Human poses some interesting questions. I wonder if it can be solved by making some basic subcultures for things like slave populations.

[OldTrees1]

One would have to assume that the species traits would need to be grouped together into two easily divided chunks.

It may not work for an Otyugh, but considering it’s not even a playable race anyway that seems an odd one to focus on.

Though the Yuan Ti raised Human poses some interesting questions. I wonder if it can be solved by making some basic subcultures for things like slave populations.

I was contesting that assumption. Looking at existing D&D species, things like Yuan Ti thematically have a lot more genetic traits than Humans do. Humans have less in the way of natural talents, which means they have more time to develop cultural talents.

So if we break that assumption, then a Human (not as a slave) raised by Yuan Ti would have the Human genetic traits, that Yuan Ti settlement's cultural traits, and still have time to learn some more cultural traits from the slaves they are sacrificing to Sseth. In contrast a Yuan Ti living among humans would have all the Yuan Ti genetic traits but only adopt some of the human cultural traits.

Maybe divide species into 3 traits that are each either genetic xor cultural. Different species would have a different mixture of genetic vs cultural. Then allow the cultural traits to be swapped based on where the character grew up.

[Dienekes]

I was contesting that assumption. Looking at existing D&D species, things like Yuan Ti thematically have a lot more genetic traits than Humans do. Humans have less in the way of natural talents, which means they have more time to develop cultural talents.

So if we break that assumption, then a Human (not as a slave) raised by Yuan Ti would have the Human genetic traits, that Yuan Ti settlement's cultural traits, and still have time to learn some more cultural traits from the slaves they are sacrificing to Sseth. In contrast a Yuan Ti living among humans would have all the Yuan Ti genetic traits but only adopt some of the human cultural traits.

Maybe divide species into 3 traits that are each either genetic xor cultural. Different species would have a different mixture of genetic vs cultural. Then allow the cultural traits to be swapped based on where the character grew up.

Seems easier just to develop Human and other genetically lean races to provide that additional species trait for the balance to work. Since your way would lead to the kinda weird result of Humans and other pretty poorly defined races are the ones that somehow learn more cultures instead of races that live for hundreds of years and would be more capable of experiencing different cultures.

Humans, the most poorly defined of the races seems like it would actually be pretty easy to expand on. Just make a pretty generically useful species trait.

Say Humans get set up like this:

Species Trait1: Feat
Species Trait2: Heroic Legacy: Get some rerolls X/day.

Make X a value that is roughly equivalent of the power of a Feat. And you have it. A race that gets two actually really powerful species traits to balance around but with very little in the way of species definition which is how we see Humans in this game.

[da newt]

I'd think the idea of every species gets two species traits and one cultural trait so that you could play Species A raised by Species B, or 1/2 Species A and 1/2 Species B raised by Species C, or Species A raised by Species A, etc would fit well into a custom lineage sort of scheme where you could mix and match as you see fit.

I imagine a list of primary features, secondary features (with the primary being the stronger mechanically and secondary being more flavor less mechanical advantage), and an additional cultural feature list and rules to mix/match as you see fit would allow for most anything and also facilitate balance.

I've often wondered why there are halfelves and halforcs but not halfdwarfs and halfelf-halforcs etc ...

[Dienekes]

I've often wondered why there are halfelves and halforcs but not halfdwarfs and halfelf-halforcs etc ...

Because they're not in Tolkien.

Though I will say there is technically half-dwarves. A Mul in 4e was a half-dwarf. They were not popular.

[HPisBS]

Thanks to Disney, I've always liked the idea of a stone by day, warrior by night -type gargoyle.

But Dark Elves' weakness is bad enough, so even something like Slowed by day would make it infeasible.

[Spore]

Kobolds, Pixies, elemental Fey (Nereids, Slyphs, Brownies) for smaller guys.

Ogres, (Mino-)Taurs, Orcs for larger ones.

[Xervous]

Thanks to Disney, I've always liked the idea of a stone by day, warrior by night -type gargoyle.

But Dark Elves' weakness is bad enough, so even something like Slowed by day would make it infeasible.

Feels like something you’d design a whole TTRPG system around. Wonky limits are fine if everyone (the PCs) all have to abide by them.

[Sigreid]

Feels like something you’d design a whole TTRPG system around. Wonky limits are fine if everyone (the PCs) all have to abide by them.

You wouldn't need the system designed around it. The campaign would have to be though.

Edit: In the end I think WoTC set the core races around 2 things. 1. Doesn't have racial abilities that are too far out there to distinguish them from the other playable races. 2. Can walk into your average human town without either people immediately panicking or lynching them.

[KorvinStarmast]

Just go old school and say kobolds are dog people; they even have pack tactics ;) That would be great, but I think the momentum on the dragon connection is gonna be tough to divert.

Which means that I also want to remove half-elf and half-orc as distinct PHB races That would not harm the game at all, though it would cut down on the number of bards by a lot (half elves being gone).

I wouldn't add races to Core for a new edition, I'd remove races. Tieflings, Drow and Dragonborn would be the ones I'd axe, and then add them in a supplement later on. NJot a bad idea, but make sure to add aasimar when you add Tiefling.
In the end I think WoTC set the core races around 2 things. 1. Doesn't have racial abilities that are too far out there to distinguish them from the other playable races. 2. Can walk into your average human town without either people immediately panicking or lynching them. Actually, point 2 is campaign dependent. :smallwink:

[Xervous]

You wouldn't need the system designed around it. The campaign would have to be though.

Edit: In the end I think WoTC set the core races around 2 things. 1. Doesn't have racial abilities that are too far out there to distinguish them from the other playable races. 2. Can walk into your average human town without either people immediately panicking or lynching them.

Yes, you can design a specific campaign to accommodate harsh drawbacks as a specific case. Races pitched as general use in the PHB don’t seem like they should assume a specific type of campaign as D&D is wedded to no setting save the kitchen sink.

[Warder]

NJot a bad idea, but make sure to add aasimar when you add Tiefling.

Yeah, definitely. My thoughts for the supplement would be one that focused on player characters with rare races, class options or backgrounds, and how to implement them into your game. The crunch, of course, but also how to roleplay them, advice for DMs on how to handle them (both as a full party of rare choices and as one stand-out character in party), etc. Different approaches to what happens when drow need to get into a human city, how to handle aasimar divine guides / warlock patrons, things like that.

[Telwar]

I'd love to replace half-orcs with goliaths. As much as I love warforged, I suspect they're a little too niche for core, though I got my gm in a 13th age game to let my "fallen god possessing a statue from his last surviving temple" use warforged stats.

I'd *personally* like race/species construction for a future edition to be divided into physiological and cultural segments, for flexibility and to make it clear that no seriously they're separate species. Half-elves can go, too, maybe bring them back later.

[Amechra]

I don't really care about what races are core - what I do want is a solid, easy-to-follow system in the DMG for creating your own balanced races. And no, "look at the races we made and eyeball them!" doesn't count.

[rlc]

I mean, 6e is probably going to have less specific types of races and more lineage-based stuff, from the looks of things. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but I’d expect “fey-lineage” before “drow elf.”

[OldTrees1]

In the end I think WoTC set the core races around 2 things. 1. Doesn't have racial abilities that are too far out there to distinguish them from the other playable races. 2. Can walk into your average human town without either people immediately panicking or lynching them.

Heh, that sounds like WotC alright. However those 2 things (more on the former, but both) are ones I want overturned in core (In the monster manual / DMG rather than necessarily the PHB, but still in core).

[KorvinStarmast]

I mean, 6e is probably going to have less specific types of races and more lineage-based stuff, from the looks of things. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but I’d expect “fey-lineage” before “drow elf.” Yes please. :smallcool: Drzzt belongs in books, not at my table. :smallwink:

[Amdy_vill]

I think the most likely ones would be orcs, goliaths. goblins, or another goblinoid or orc-like race. given goblinoids and orc-like races are predy much a given in the first expansion of most editions.

I would personally like to see more plane touch races in core. aasimar would likely be the pick if this did happen or genasi but I would prefer one of the more esoteric plane touch races. Mechanatrixes or the modron one are my personal pick but in general, I think plane touched should be explored more. we have 6 ish generic plane touch and a bunch of specific ones as well as the dragon planer disease things witch is very similar. personally, I think 6e will use the lineage system, and will likely lead to a large number of base lineages I think we will see more of a 15-25 ish base lineages, most probably being subraces and such but I think we will see 2-5 new base lineages. -

[Maat Mons]

Sorry, don't have time to read through everyone's posts right now. So some of these might be redundant.

Established races I'd like to see become core:

elan
hengeyokai
kobold
lizardfolk
minotaur
necropolitan
vril
warforged

Core races I'd like to see removed from core:

dragonborn
halfling

New races I'd like to see added, and if it's in core, so much the better:

some type of fairy
something that can transform its lower body between legs and a fish tail
vampire-like undead, but less screwed by sunlight

Races I'd like to see changed:

aasima/tieflings with wings
tieflings that look more like the illustraion for incubus/sucubus and not hideous red things

[Luccan]

Sorry, don't have time to read through everyone's posts right now. So some of these might be redundant.

Established races I'd like to see become core:

elan
hengeyokai
kobold
lizardfolk
minotaur
necropolitan
vril
warforged

Core races I'd like to see removed from core:

dragonborn
halfling

New races I'd like to see added, and if it's in core, so much the better:

some type of fairy
something that can transform its lower body between legs and a fish tail
vampire-like undead, but less screwed by sunlight

Races I'd like to see changed:

aasima/tieflings with wings
tieflings that look more like the illustraion for incubus/sucubus and not hideous red things


I know by the very words of your post you disagree, but I'd argue modern tieflings are absolutely supposed to evoke incubi/succubi in their design. That +2 Charisma (literally the opposite of 3e) is being applied directly to their physical form in all the artwork.

Personally, I'd like them to look at little less obviously demonic. At least some of them, because right now the obvious Hellboy thing makes it weird there are so many of them running around, if it's intended by the designers to frighten peasants

[Lord Raziere]

I know by the very words of your post you disagree, but I'd argue modern tieflings are absolutely supposed to evoke incubi/succubi in their design. That +2 Charisma (literally the opposite of 3e) is being applied directly to their physical form in all the artwork.

Personally, I'd like them to look at little less obviously demonic. At least some of them, because right now the obvious Hellboy thing makes it weird there are so many of them running around, if it's intended by the designers to frighten peasants

they're red skin and horns. any less demonic and they're just a human. I think you'll have just to accept your not the target audience. furthermore, they don't frighten peasants, the sidebar the corebook uses is "distrust". different connotations. people can work with others they distrust, they just won't be showing themselves as vulnerable around them.

[Luccan]

they're red skin and horns. any less demonic and they're just a human. I think you'll have just to accept your not the target audience. furthermore, they don't frighten peasants, the sidebar the corebook uses is "distrust". different connotations. people can work with others they distrust, they just won't be showing themselves as vulnerable around them.

3e tieflings, at least in the MM, usually just had one fiendish trait, still obvious but much less "you're playing a demon" and much closer to "you're playing half (or quarter, eighth etc.) demon spawn". It's an important distinction that I'd like to come back at least a little. I'm not saying they all have to be like that, I like the more devilish look as an option, but I just feel like they're really same-y right now. Plus, I feel like the designs in 4e, which the 5e look is based on, were so obviously fiendish for a reason. Weren't they descendants of a demon worshipping empire in Nentir Vale? Makes a lot more sense to be more demonic since their ancestors probably were too. But 5e tieflings often don't follow that example. Also, I wish fewer tieflings had tails

[Lord Raziere]

3e tieflings, at least in the MM, usually just had one fiendish trait, still obvious but much less "you're playing a demon" and much closer to "you're playing half (or quarter, eighth etc.) demon spawn". It's an important distinction that I'd like to come back at least a little. I'm not saying they all have to be like that, I like the more devilish look as an option, but I just feel like they're really same-y right now. Plus, I feel like the designs in 4e, which the 5e look is based on, were so obviously fiendish for a reason. Weren't they descendants of a demon worshipping empire in Nentir Vale? Makes a lot more sense to be more demonic since their ancestors probably were too. But 5e tieflings often don't follow that example. Also, I wish fewer tieflings had tails

Again, your not target audience. the entire point of why I like tieflings is that they're obviously fiendish, most other races in the corebook are all either humdrum watered down fair folk whose cultures all boil down to some variation of "we happily dwell in some isolated place being nebulously magical and let humans become the dominant species through pure numbers", half orcs (who should really just be orcs by now) or dragonborn.

[Second Wind]

The PHB only has three distinct races: Dragonborn, Tiefling, and seven shades of human. I'd prioritize either adding races that aren't human, or rewriting some of the various humans so they're no longer humans.

Tabaxi are the natural addition. They're nicely distinct from the other three, and mechanically interesting due to Feline Agility. Changelings and Warforged are also distinctive but place specific demands on the setting.

[JellyPooga]

Again, your not target audience. the entire point of why I like tieflings is that they're obviously fiendish, most other races in the corebook are all either humdrum watered down fair folk whose cultures all boil down to some variation of "we happily dwell in some isolated place being nebulously magical and let humans become the dominant species through pure numbers", half orcs (who should really just be orcs by now) or dragonborn.

The problem here is that if I want to play something that's obviously fiendish, I want the features to also represent that, more than mere appearance. Yeah, ok, Tieflings get fire resistance and some flamey SLA's, but those horns? Nah, no gore attack for you. Tail? Does nothing. Imposing presence from looking like literal hell-spawn? Nope, not even proficiency in Intimidation. The contents don't match the cover. A more subtle looking Tielfling, like the one presented in 3e, is more fitting to the more subtle racial features presented by their stats. They're also so much more interesting, in my opinion. Compare:

"I'm sooo edgy and cool with my red skin, horns and tail and I'm sooo persecuted because of my appearance that I can't easily conceal"
to
"I can conceal my dark heritage and infiltrate society, wary and fearful of the consequence of failing to do so OR I can capitalise on my subtly fiendish appearance to cow and intimidate those I meet OR I can look like the literal hell-spawn my daddy is and be the teenage edgelord that is apparently the so-called target audience these days"

One of these is a tiresome meme and the other has much more variety, giving the race a much broader applicability in both character design and a wider range of settings. I know which I prefer, but then I'm probably not the target audience either, right?

[Warder]

The problem here is that if I want to play something that's obviously fiendish, I want the features to also represent that, more than mere appearance. Yeah, ok, Tieflings get fire resistance and some flamey SLA's, but those horns? Nah, no gore attack for you. Tail? Does nothing. Imposing presence from looking like literal hell-spawn? Nope, not even proficiency in Intimidation. The contents don't match the cover. A more subtle looking Tielfling, like the one presented in 3e, is more fitting to the more subtle racial features presented by their stats. They're also so much more interesting, in my opinion. Compare:

"I'm sooo edgy and cool with my red skin, horns and tail and I'm sooo persecuted because of my appearance that I can't easily conceal"
to
"I can conceal my dark heritage and infiltrate society, wary and fearful of the consequence of failing to do so OR I can capitalise on my subtly fiendish appearance to cow and intimidate those I meet OR I can look like the literal hell-spawn my daddy is and be the teenage edgelord that is apparently the so-called target audience these days"

One of these is a tiresome meme and the other has much more variety, giving the race a much broader applicability in both character design and a wider range of settings. I know which I prefer, but then I'm probably not the target audience either, right?

I agree completely - tieflings being planetouched members of other species is far more interesting to me and is better story material than them being a uniform species of their own. But we should be careful with our opinions, since we're not the target audience.

[Valmark]

The problem here is that if I want to play something that's obviously fiendish, I want the features to also represent that, more than mere appearance. Yeah, ok, Tieflings get fire resistance and some flamey SLA's, but those horns? Nah, no gore attack for you. Tail? Does nothing. Imposing presence from looking like literal hell-spawn? Nope, not even proficiency in Intimidation. The contents don't match the cover. A more subtle looking Tielfling, like the one presented in 3e, is more fitting to the more subtle racial features presented by their stats. They're also so much more interesting, in my opinion. Compare:

"I'm sooo edgy and cool with my red skin, horns and tail and I'm sooo persecuted because of my appearance that I can't easily conceal"
to
"I can conceal my dark heritage and infiltrate society, wary and fearful of the consequence of failing to do so OR I can capitalise on my subtly fiendish appearance to cow and intimidate those I meet OR I can look like the literal hell-spawn my daddy is and be the teenage edgelord that is apparently the so-called target audience these days"

One of these is a tiresome meme and the other has much more variety, giving the race a much broader applicability in both character design and a wider range of settings. I know which I prefer, but then I'm probably not the target audience either, right?

I don't think you should compare 3.5's tieflings to 5e's ones... 3.5 ones were actively worse at intimidating people then other races. That second and third category you mentioned apply more to this edition's tiefling.

Honestly 5e's ones play actually better to the first too. You can have easy to hide horns and/or cut them, the tail and eyes can be hidden but 3.5 ones by default either smelled bad or had a "disturbing demeanor" plus another characteristic. That's harder then just wearing a long coat and a hood to hide.

Of course, if a tiefling player makes some horns as long as an arm shoot straight towards the sky (as an example) they'll have an hard time hiding them, but nobody forced them to.

[JellyPooga]

I don't think you should compare 3.5's tieflings to 5e's ones... 3.5 ones were actively worse at intimidating people then other races. That second and third category you mentioned apply more to this edition's tiefling.

Honestly 5e's ones play actually better to the first too. You can have easy to hide horns and/or cut them, the tail and eyes can be hidden but 3.5 ones by default either smelled bad or had a "disturbing demeanor" plus another characteristic. That's harder then just wearing a long coat and a hood to hide.

Of course, if a tiefling player makes some horns as long as an arm shoot straight towards the sky (as an example) they'll have an hard time hiding them, but nobody forced them to.

I should clarify that I was comparing 3e appearance only, which could be as subtle or obvious as you desired compared to 5e where you must have (I quote) large horns and a 4-5ft tail that no-one is hiding...like, ever, not to mention the mandatory pupiless eyes, pointy teeth and potentially red skin (which is the only optional feature here).

I was never much of a fan of 3e Tiefling from a stats perspective; again, their stats didn't match their description, particularly with regard to their Charisma penalty vs. their position as deceivers and infiltrators. 3e still had some confusion over Charisma, appearance and reputation/opinion/social acceptance and the Tiefling is an example of this confusion.

[Dienekes]

I know by the very words of your post you disagree, but I'd argue modern tieflings are absolutely supposed to evoke incubi/succubi in their design. That +2 Charisma (literally the opposite of 3e) is being applied directly to their physical form in all the artwork.

Personally, I'd like them to look at little less obviously demonic. At least some of them, because right now the obvious Hellboy thing makes it weird there are so many of them running around, if it's intended by the designers to frighten peasants

Honestly I’d want them to be more demonic.

The demon that spawned them may be charming and beautiful, but a demon’s works always turn out foul.

Hell the fluff of the race is how they are naturally mistrusted and reviled wherever they go, leading them down the path of evil even if they are not naturally inclined to go that direction. In a world of Dragonborn and orcs, generically attractive with an odd coloration and some horns does not cut it.

Give me absolutely vile. A form twisted and grotesque. Grandiose maybe, with the power of demons behind it. But definitely looking less like a dancer you’d see at Jabba’s palace and more like Jabba himself. Something that should disgust so we can see why everyone finds dealing with them so unsettling.

Of course as they are Tieflings allow players to have generically tragic backstories and still be beautiful. Which seems to be popular for folks. So, the chance of going all in on a race for the disgusting is slim to 0.

[Sigreid]

Heh, that sounds like WotC alright. However those 2 things (more on the former, but both) are ones I want overturned in core (In the monster manual / DMG rather than necessarily the PHB, but still in core).

Got to remember that the PHB is, and always has been intended to be the basic setup to let noobs get started with minimal frustration. A head start.

[OldTrees1]

Got to remember that the PHB is, and always has been intended to be the basic setup to let noobs get started with minimal frustration. A head start.
Yes. Exactly. A head start. Wouldn't it be a good idea for the DMG/MM to have a head start for interesting races? Even if the interesting races get put in the PHB, there would still be plenty of Humans in the PHB.

[Sigreid]

Yes. Exactly. A head start. Wouldn't it be a good idea for the DMG/MM to have a head start for interesting races? Even if the interesting races get put in the PHB, there would still be plenty of Humans in the PHB.

Eh, part of the training wheels is kind of a default setting. the DMG is a good place for for a few weirder races and guidelines for creating more. MM is a good place for a discussion on templates.

[StoneSeraph]

Yes. Exactly. A head start. Wouldn't it be a good idea for the DMG/MM to have a head start for interesting races?

Why bother? - WotC will churn out another 50 races after the fact, and even then players will only stick to whatever custom stat drops best suit their class mechanics.

[Lord Raziere]

One of these is a tiresome meme and the other has much more variety, giving the race a much broader applicability in both character design and a wider range of settings. I know which I prefer, but then I'm probably not the target audience either, right?

Nope! Definitely not target audience. Memes sell. :smallamused: While your modifications aren't even a mechanical change, they're fluff. thats so minor thats "if the Gm wants their tieflings to be more subtle, they're more than free to do so" territory. They're a company that needs to get out a strong memorable concept to....who knows how many people so that it sticks in their minds no matter who is viewing it. subtlety isn't exactly high priority when it comes to marketing, nor do you necessarily need people to like it, to remember it. from a marketing perspective 5e tieflings are strong visual design, aesthetically pleasing and drawing upon a common archetype that is both known by DnD players and the wider culture they're selling in to get across what they are going for, to tell you what they're about.

your thinking from a flexibility perspective which is not a bad perspective, its just not one that works when trying to get across a concept to an audience of people on a large scale. memes work because they're simple, distinctive and striking in a way that sticks in your mind. one could argue that the entire point of advertising is to create memes so that those memes will make people by the product because the meme stuck in their mind.

what you want? is not a meme. this means its higher quality, but high quality and marketability were never good friends. high quality stuff is all about "things are deeper and more complex than it first seems", while marketing is all about "things are EXACTLY as they seem and we are making it as simple as possible to get across what we're communicating so that you know exactly what this is about!"

this of course means that the tiefling is simplified down to being a mini-devil. you don't want the tiefling to be mistaken for a satyr or a qunari by giving them normal skin in the art. you don't want people confused about what they're looking at. sure you can argue its unrealistic or undesirable in setting but the point of the art is to communicate things to YOU. now sure there is text next to the picture describing them but if someone don't have the flexibility to ignore a little thing like that and change the tieflings to be what they want for their game so that it works for them, they're in the wrong hobby. archetypes are there to be deviated from, not followed.

[OldTrees1]

Eh, part of the training wheels is kind of a default setting. the DMG is a good place for for a few weirder races and guidelines for creating more. MM is a good place for a discussion on templates.

I agree, which is why I default to placing them in the MM / DMG part of CORE. However I think you would still get the same result if the vast majority of the PHB races were Human with a couple exceptions.


Why bother? - WotC will churn out another 50 races after the fact, and even then players will only stick to whatever custom stat drops best suit their class mechanics.

I know that was sarcasm but I did not parse it correctly. Apologies if my reply is off topic.

Honestly WotC seems adversarial to monstrous PCs. I would like that to change.

Also there is a good chunk of players that look for the qualitative aspect of the races before looking at the stat drops. Given WotC's recent adjustment, I think we would all benefit if more races had some qualitative aspects.

[JellyPooga]

Nope! Definitely not target audience. Memes sell. :smallamused: While your modifications aren't even a mechanical change, they're fluff. thats so minor thats "if the Gm wants their tieflings to be more subtle, they're more than free to do so" territory. They're a company that needs to get out a strong memorable concept to....who knows how many people so that it sticks in their minds no matter who is viewing it. subtlety isn't exactly high priority when it comes to marketing, nor do you necessarily need people to like it, to remember it. from a marketing perspective 5e tieflings are strong visual design, aesthetically pleasing and drawing upon a common archetype that is both known by DnD players and the wider culture they're selling in to get across what they are going for, to tell you what they're about.

your thinking from a flexibility perspective which is not a bad perspective, its just not one that works when trying to get across a concept to an audience of people on a large scale. memes work because they're simple, distinctive and striking in a way that sticks in your mind. one could argue that the entire point of advertising is to create memes so that those memes will make people by the product because the meme stuck in their mind.

what you want? is not a meme. this means its higher quality, but high quality and marketability were never good friends. high quality stuff is all about "things are deeper and more complex than it first seems", while marketing is all about "things are EXACTLY as they seem and we are making it as simple as possible to get across what we're communicating so that you know exactly what this is about!"

this of course means that the tiefling is simplified down to being a mini-devil. you don't want the tiefling to be mistaken for a satyr or a qunari by giving them normal skin in the art. you don't want people confused about what they're looking at. sure you can argue its unrealistic or undesirable in setting but the point of the art is to communicate things to YOU. now sure there is text next to the picture describing them but if someone don't have the flexibility to ignore a little thing like that and change the tieflings to be what they want for their game so that it works for them, they're in the wrong hobby. archetypes are there to be deviated from, not followed.

I don't disagree with any of this, but it still falls into the problem that the image of the Tiefling that they're presenting doesn't match the reality of how they play. They're described and shown to have a massive, unmistakably large 4-5ft tail that has zero impact on their gameplay. This isn't an optional feature, it's as much part of being a 5e Tiefling as being short is to a Halfling, but where the latter has a verifiable gameplay effect (i.e. being Small sized), the Tieflings tail does...nothing? Same goes for their horns. In fact, the entirety of their devilish appearance is glossed over as a non-entity by the rules. 3e might have had a bit of disconnect between their appearance and their gameplay stats, but at least it acknowledged it.

They might look obviously fiendish, but in actual play...those fiendish traits are what's watered down and that's an issue. If you're going to promote Tieflings as "Hey, check it out, you can play as a hell-spawned demon-looking guy! Hellboy, eat your heart out!"...you better damned well deliver on that promise otherwise all that glorious promotion is just snake-oil salesmanship, which is as bad as, if not worse than the alternative.

[KorvinStarmast]

3e tieflings, at least in the MM, usually just had one fiendish trait, still obvious but much less "you're playing a demon" and much closer to "you're playing half (or quarter, eighth etc.) demon spawn". It's an important distinction that I'd like to come back at least a little. {snip} Plus, I feel like the designs in 4e, which the 5e look is based on, were so obviously fiendish for a reason. The horns and tails are part of why I feel that they don't fit outside of a Planescape setting. Lose the horns and the tail, and make small horns maybe become visible/emerge when under stress, or as a bonus action like Wolverine's claws.
{snip} Tieflings get fire resistance and some flamey SLA's, but those horns? Nah, no gore attack for you. Tail? Does nothing. Imposing presence from looking like literal hell-spawn? Nope, not even proficiency in Intimidation. The contents don't match the cover. A more subtle looking Tielfling, like the one presented in 3e, is more fitting to the more subtle racial features presented by their stats. They're also so much more interesting, in my opinion. Compare:

"I'm sooo edgy and cool with my red skin, horns and tail and I'm sooo persecuted because of my appearance that I can't easily conceal"
to
"I can conceal my dark heritage and infiltrate society, wary and fearful of the consequence of failing to do so OR I can capitalise on my subtly fiendish appearance to cow and intimidate those I meet OR I can look like the literal hell-spawn my daddy is and be the teenage edgelord that is apparently the so-called target audience these days" You were able to put into words some of what I was thinking, thanks. :smallsmile:
But we should be careful with our opinions, since we're not the target audience. I am gonna go and clean up my coffee spill now ...

Got to remember that the PHB is, and always has been intended to be the basic setup to let noobs get started with minimal frustration. A head start. I thought that was the Basic Rules and the Starter Set. But yeah, the DMG is where the customization starts.

Why bother? - WotC will churn out another 50 races after the fact, and even then players will only stick to whatever custom stat drops best suit their class mechanics. But some of those races will be non playable in AL.

[Lord Raziere]

Well I like tieflings as they are now so.......can't agree with with this "tone them down" vibe I'm getting. anything less demony and they're pointless, might as well play a human. and I never want to play human if I can help it.

[StoneSeraph]

Also there is a good chunk of players that look for the qualitative aspect of the races before looking at the stat drops. Given WotC's recent adjustment, I think we would all benefit if more races had some qualitative aspects.

Forgive the pedantry, but all races have qualitative aspects, or rather, all races can be described qualitatively. "The tabaxi are catlike and have tails", "Halflings are like humans but smaller in stature", "Kenku are crow-like and cannot speak original sounds", etc. Could you please explain what you mean?

[JellyPooga]

Well I like tieflings as they are now so.......can't agree with with this "tone them down" vibe I'm getting. anything less demony and they're pointless, might as well play a human. and I never want to play human if I can help it.

That's kind of my point; current Tieflings are basically humans with fire resistance and a fancy hat that no-one cares about after introductions are done. I'm saying match their appearance to their stats; whether that means capitalising their fiendish appearance and reflecting that in their stats, or vice versa, reflecting their stats in a more subtle appearance, I don't care, but as it stands they simply don't match.

You want a demon? Then I say play a damn demon; fire, brimstone, horns, tail, eyes of eternal night...I want all of it to do something, so I can actively "demon" my way through the game. Not some flimsy excuse of a human half-breed with useless prosthetics and every now and then someone saying "oh yeah, you've got a stonking great big tail that I should probably have been tripping over this whole time...forgot about that."

[Catullus64]

Am I the only person who thinks that "humans with different hats" is a good philosophy with which to approach race design? All of the people playing them are going to be humans, after all, and they're still expected to be human in terms of having motives, emotions, and goals which are comprehensible to us as people.

Secondarily, I think that the more emphasis is put on immense variety and weirdness in the core races, the more it pushes the attitude that the characters are supposed to be the exotic and magical thing, and not the worlds they explore or the adventures they have. From where I sit, D&D could do with less of the former and more of the latter. If race is a small set of low-variance options, like with, say, the eight core races of AD&D, it encourages people to get on with characterizing their PC with thought and action, and not with how wacky and creative their racial template is. For the core of a game, leaning into archetype and established convention (which your workaday Elves and Dwarves have in abundance) for character options strikes me as a strength which should not be carelessly discarded.

I know that there's little to no chance of my weirdly conservative vision finding much traction in any mass-appeal version of the game going forward, but there's my position staked out.

I also think that monstrous PCs introduce a little bit of cognitive dissonance into a game heavily centered around killing monsters. Ergo, they need to be handled with more care than sticking them in the most basic player-facing book and presenting them as a core part of the game. If you want Goblin PCs as core, fine, but don't be surprised at the weirdness and drama that come from slaughtering Goblins by the dozen.

[JellyPooga]

Am I the only person who thinks that "humans with different hats" is a good philosophy with which to approach race design? All of the people playing them are going to be humans, after all, and they're still expected to be human in terms of having motives, emotions, and goals which are comprehensible to us as people.

Secondarily, I think that the more emphasis is put on immense variety and weirdness in the core races, the more it pushes the attitude that the characters are supposed to be the exotic and magical thing, and not the worlds they explore or the adventures they have. From where I sit, D&D could do with less of the former and more of the latter. If race is a small set of low-variance options, like with, say, the eight core races of AD&D, it encourages people to get on with characterizing their PC with thought and action, and not with how wacky and creative their racial template is. For the core of a game, leaning into archetype and established convention (which your workaday Elves and Dwarves have in abundance) for character options strikes me as a strength which should not be carelessly discarded.

I know that there's little to no chance of my weirdly conservative vision finding much traction in any mass-appeal version of the game going forward, but there's my position staked out.

I also think that monstrous PCs introduce a little bit of cognitive dissonance into a game heavily centered around killing monsters. Ergo, they need to be handled with more care than sticking them in the most basic player-facing book and presenting them as a core part of the game.

I'm gonna go ahead and +1 this post.

When the exotic is the norm, it's no longer exotic.

[KorvinStarmast]

You want a demon? Then I say play a damn demon; fire, brimstone, horns, tail, eyes of eternal night...I want all of it to do something, so I can actively "demon" my way through the game. Not some flimsy excuse of a human half-breed with useless prosthetics and every now and then someone saying "oh yeah, you've got a stonking great big tail that I should probably have been tripping over this whole time...forgot about that." Heh, and once again I hold out hope for a Planescape setting/adventures to follow up on this. (Not Dragonlance, but the latest "Tracy and Maggie have settled their differences with WoTC" communique from their respective agents screams "DL is coming" to me). :smallyuk:

Am I the only person who thinks that "humans with different hats" is a good philosophy with which to approach race design? Not only you. Gary Gygax spelled it out very clearly in the AD&D 1e DMG about 40 years ago. :smallbiggrin: I've found the 'humans with hats' works very well with all age groups as a DM over a span of about 40 years. (My first DM'ing was in Empire of the Petal Throne).

All of the people playing them are going to be humans, after all, and they're still expected to be human in terms of having motives, emotions, and goals which are comprehensible to us as people. Cha ching! As Gary said:
It is the most logical basis in an illogical game. From a design aspect it provides the sound groundwork. From a standpoint of creating the campaign milieu it provides the most readily usable assumptions. From a participation approach it is the only method, for all players are, after all is said and done, human, and it allows them the role with which most are most desirous and capable of identifying with. Granted, this scope limitation for AD&D 1e has since been expanded upon. There is always, I have found in world building, the problem of balancing how much primary world versus secondary world one uses in the mix of your fantastical story and setting.
It's dialable.
FWIW, as much as I dislike the artificer class being inserted into the mix outside of Eberron, I think that Keith Baker did a neat job of turning the dials for his Eberron setting. Dark Sun was, to me, one of the best ever.

Secondarily, I think that the more emphasis is put on immense variety and weirdness in the core races, the more it pushes the attitude that the characters are supposed to be the exotic and magical thing, and not the worlds they explore or the adventures they have. From where I sit, D&D could do with less of the former and more of the latter. I tend to agree, but tastes will differ on that.
Compare William Gibson's Neuromancer with Heinein's Moon is a Harsh mistress to Harlan Ellisons I have no mouth but I must scream - dialable fidelity to the primary world.

If race is a small set of low-variance options, like with, say, the eight core races of AD&D, it encourages people to get on with characterizing their PC with thought and action, and not with how wacky and creative their racial template is. For the core of a game, leaning into archetype and established convention (which your workaday Elves and Dwarves have in abundance) for character options strikes me as a strength which should not be carelessly discarded. It's been working for a long time; yeah. (But it's not the only model that works).

I know that there's little to no chance of my weirdly conservative vision finding much traction in any mass-appeal version of the game going forward, but there's my position staked out. Speculative fiction authors wrestle and work with 'how weird and how far do I go?' - someone like Gene Wolfe goes places that Robin Hobb often won't, for example. I agree with you: the character's journey is the thing. It's the point of adventuring.

I also think that monstrous PCs introduce a little bit of cognitive dissonance into a game heavily centered around killing monsters. Ergo, they need to be handled with more care than sticking them in the most basic player-facing book and presenting them as a core part of the game. If you want Goblin PCs as core, fine, but don't be surprised at the weirdness and drama that come from slaughtering Goblins by the dozen. Some very good points in there.
I'll go back to Gary's perhaps overly-humanocentric vision for AD&D 1e.

ADVANCED D&D is unquestionably "humanocentric", with demi-humans, semi-humans, and humanoids in various orbits around the sun of humanity. Men are the worst monsters, particularly high level characters such as clerics, fighters, and magic-users - whether singly, in small groups, or in large companies. The ultra-powerful beings of other planes are more fearsome - the 3 D s of demi-gods, demons, and devils are enough to strike fear into most characters, let alone when the very gods themselves are brought into consideration. Yet, there is a point where the well-equipped, high-level party of adventurers can challenge a demon prince, an arch-devil, or a demi-god. While there might well be some near or part humans with the group so doing, it is certain that the leaders will be human. In co-operation men bring ruin upon monsterdom, for they have no upper limits as to level or acquired power from spells or items. It's one end of the sliding scale. Now that level limits are gone, some of EGGs core assumptions don't work any more.
I'm gonna go ahead and +1 this post.

When the exotic is the norm, it's no longer exotic. Yeah. Tiefling? For my taste, is both boring and badly implemented.

As to PCs in general: it's the content of their character as expressed in the choices that they make, and the consequences they trigger, as well as their exciting and dangerous adventures that matter - not their race. And for that matter, not their back story. (This from me, a guy who will drop a three page back story on a DM in a heartbeat - but now I ask first "how much back story do you want?" before doing that.
The back story is a point of departure.
Adventuring, the phase in PCs' lives that they are in during game play, is very much a case of "What have you done for me lately?" :smallyuk:

Emergent growth, yadda yadda yadda ...
A. You may have started off as a nice little halfling from Vertshire who turned into a bloody handed murderer. (Rogue, halfling, archetype Assassin)
B. You may have started out as demon spawn, and turned into a savior of the light (Warlock, Tiefling, Celestial Patron)

[Lord Raziere]

I mean I want to play monstrous races as PCs- which may partly due to being a former WoW player who is too smart to pay subscription money- but I'm weird compared to most people, so who knows? I don't really care for the people who advocate for the races being more alien or for the people who want to make them just hats, because trying to portray an alien is hard like really difficult, and I have high standards for alienness; if it it doesn't at least have a completely different form of reproduction and a completely different planet that explains all its adaptations, it might as well be a weird human to me, but just hatting them down to subtle tones and you might just make them mutations on humans.

but see I like weird humans. they're the best kind of human. an exaggeration is good as long as you can round it out with all other emotions you feel on the spectrum so they're more than just the single thing, but all the things that come as a result of that thing being true without anything preventing the pain that comes with it. if a culture is a warrior race- make them warriors yes, but that doesn't mean they are all the same warriors, that they all the have same fighting style, or that they have the same opinions of fighting, tactics or whatever else. in fact such a culture if the truly loved fighting would love to see all the many variations of fighting you could possibly have, all the strategies, tactics and how to counter them and so on....a point of unification is often also a point of division and deviation. a culture can all worship a god but disagree on how, things like that. and no culture lives up to its ideals. not truly, not 100% of the time- there are backlashes, countercultures, nobles, middle classes and poor, criminals. a culture should never be entirely successful at its ideals if its to be portrayed in a serious, meaningful light, and hatting them denies the complexity of this.

there is an excluded middle I feel, you may call it just another form of hatting but I disagree, as hatting is shallow and assumes that its just a label without anything underneath.

[StoneSeraph]

I'm gonna go ahead and +1 this post.

When the exotic is the norm, it's no longer exotic.

+1 to yours and the above.

[Warder]

Am I the only person who thinks that "humans with different hats" is a good philosophy with which to approach race design? All of the people playing them are going to be humans, after all, and they're still expected to be human in terms of having motives, emotions, and goals which are comprehensible to us as people.

I guess it depends on how you use that term, really. For me, I'd use that to describe what WotC is trying to do with races post-Tasha, no matter what they actually look like. But on the flip side, I wouldn't apply that label to, say, elves, because they're so very different from humans. Just the crazy life spans alone would make them substantially different, but the trancing, the recycled souls, the memories of past lives... I can't even begin to imagine how different all that would make them in outlook and approach to life and the world in general, and that's not even going into purely physiological differences.

In contrast, tieflings are 100% humans with different hats to me, from that perspective.

[KorvinStarmast]

In contrast, tieflings are 100% humans with different hats to me, from that perspective. And they have to cut holes into those hats because of them darned horns ...

Responding to another nice post by ...
but I'm weird compared to most people, so who knows?
Hee Hee. :smallbiggrin: Most of us who play D&D are kind of like that, though the game has become a bit more mainstream over the past generation ...

The next part of your post does a nice job of highlighting that mix of the terms 'race' and 'culture' that I remember Crawford talking about two or three years ago. Something to the effect of "We are realizing that race may not be the best term to use here, and maybe need to approach the differentiation as cultural" - but I can't find my old link to that observatin he made. Actually I think it was in a youtube discussion, but memory is not helping right now. Sorry.

there is an excluded middle I feel, you may call it just another form of hatting but I disagree, as hatting is shallow and assumes that its just a label without anything underneath. Well, the PC is an empty taco shell until you or I or any of us fills the shell up with content and brings them to life. Shallow is as shallow does, I think.
What we, the players, do is we give the character depth. I can do that, and I am dead certain that you do that {based on how you describe your approach} regardless of what character race or origin we choose (or even select at random).

[Catullus64]

The next part of your post does a nice job of addressing that mix of the terms 'race' and 'culture' that I remember Crawford talking about two or three years ago. Something to the effect of "We are realizing that race may not be the best term to use here, and maybe need to approach the differentiation as cultural" but I can't find my old link to that observatin he made. Actually I think it was in a youtube discussion, but memory is not helping right now. Sorry.


I think that just changing the names (Having "culture" have the same mechanical role as what we currently call "race") would be fine, but I think that the functional role that race plays in D&D is important. It provides a set of traits for your character in which they are not a unique individual, but rather part of a larger group, subject to the same conditions and facts of living. Race is what helps connect the PC to the world, and frankly a change towards emphasizing culture would be really great for that.

[Lord Raziere]

I think that just changing the names (Having "culture" have the same mechanical role as what we currently call "race") would be fine, but I think that the functional role that race plays in D&D is important. It provides a set of traits for your character in which they are not a unique individual, but rather part of a larger group, subject to the same conditions and facts of living. Race is what helps connect the PC to the world, and frankly a change towards emphasizing culture would be really great for that.

I agree. By using biology alone one is defining people by base nature, as being animals. Culture I feel is needed, because culture is all about how we are beyond mere animals, beyond the biology that we come from. Sure biology is important, but we are more than biology. Sure the biology can affect culture, but again it is not everything. Eberron Changelings I think are a good example of this: sure they all can shapeshift, but whats more interesting and important is what they decide to DO with the shapeshifting:
-some take identities on and off like clothing, changing them out endlessly
-some pick on identity and try to pass as that person forever, not wanting to be known as a changeling at all
-some shapeshift into their true form and decide that live in that while shapeshifting into other races as little as possible

these three changeling paths are not something that biology alone can explain. its up to the individual changeling to decide which group they identify with, and why they do so based on their history and what they feel is right. biology doesn't somehow bend to make sure these three become separate races, its just how they react to being a shapeshifter in a world that doesn't like them, how they decide to deal with that and what culture results from that choice. there is no hat here, at least I feel, because these are all options for how a changeling can react to what they've been born as and they're all reasonable reactions: either to not care and take advantage of what they are to the fullest, to decide on a single identity they want to be above all else and stick with it come what may, or to not use it at all, wanting to be honest and trustworthy to the people around them. all three are valid, sympathetic choices that a person could make, and all three have their own challenges to face. they are quite well designed in my opinion.

[OldTrees1]

Forgive the pedantry, but all races have qualitative aspects, or rather, all races can be described qualitatively. "The tabaxi are catlike and have tails", "Halflings are like humans but smaller in stature", "Kenku are crow-like and cannot speak original sounds", etc. Could you please explain what you mean?

Quite fair, that statement came out broader than I intended.

Given the ease of refluffing any fluff that does not arise from mechanical texture, the fluff from mechanical texture seems to be the core of the race. Of that fluff, the fluff arising from qualitative mechanics (rather than +X stats, +X proficiencies, +X languages) is the best at creating non comparable. Of those non comparables, a player will judge some as insignificant and others as significant. While that is subjective, generally speaking the more the feature differentiates the race from being a "human with a hat" the more will see it as significant. It is those features that I see players use as a first pass filter when instantiating a character concept.

Tabaxi are humans wearing cat suits with a tail attachment. But they do have Darkvision (very common feature so less of a differentiator), Climb speed, and claws.
Kenku are humans that RP a speech restriction. It is an interesting idea, but it can be added to another race refluffed as a Kenku.

Now both of those are very human adjacent races, as one expects for an anthro, but one of them has more mechanical support for differentiating them from humans. While would still want even more diverse species, I do appreciate Tabaxi having a climb speed and others have appreciated them and lizardfolk having natural weapons.


Another way to think about this is a thought experiment:
Without using the Halfing race, make a 1st level halfling character
Without using the Tabaxi race, make a 1st level tabaxi character
Without using the Myconoid race, make a 1st level myconoid character

[MagneticKitty]

I want a generic animal folk race so we don't have only lizards, turtles, cows and cats. just make them like simic hybrid where they get a few traits to pick to represent what animal they are.
also a plant race. insect race.
a lot more alien like races that do not look or act like "humans but with x".

[Arkhios]

Half-dwarf would be my obvious choice for the current edition. I don't care what races there are in a hypothetical next edition we know nothing about anyway.

[Xervous]

I want a generic animal folk race so we don't have only lizards, turtles, cows and cats. just make them like simic hybrid where they get a few traits to pick to represent what animal they are.
also a plant race. insect race.
a lot more alien like races that do not look or act like "humans but with x".

Do tell how this is going to fit into just about any lore. A formless template race provides nothing in the way of common ground that makes facets of D&D into things we can discuss in shorthand. If it’s supposed to allow any specific arrangement while having that specific arrangement be universal for a setting it’s nigh worthless. The difference between a tabaxi and a build your own (that turns out to be a cat in this instance) is that all manner of books and material can consistently interact with tabaxi as a concept. Meanwhile the custom that happens to be a cat cannot truly exist as a supported race of its own. They’ve left it open ended so it falls 100% on a GM to pencil in the details. If specific examples were spelled out in setting splats, those just effectively become separate races from the template. Penciling in one possible outcome of the template does not justify every single possible outcome.

[rlc]

I want a generic animal folk race so we don't have only lizards, turtles, cows and cats. just make them like simic hybrid where they get a few traits to pick to represent what animal they are.
also a plant race. insect race.
a lot more alien like races that do not look or act like "humans but with x".

I think this is going to be the future of d&d, honestly. Humans are going to get their feat at first level, but most other races are going to be mix and match.


Do tell how this is going to fit into just about any lore. A formless template race provides nothing in the way of common ground that makes facets of D&D into things we can discuss in shorthand. If it’s supposed to allow any specific arrangement while having that specific arrangement be universal for a setting it’s nigh worthless. The difference between a tabaxi and a build your own (that turns out to be a cat in this instance) is that all manner of books and material can consistently interact with tabaxi as a concept. Meanwhile the custom that happens to be a cat cannot truly exist as a supported race of its own. They’ve left it open ended so it falls 100% on a GM to pencil in the details. If specific examples were spelled out in setting splats, those just effectively become separate races from the template. Penciling in one possible outcome of the template does not justify every single possible outcome.

Disagree. You can still call it an elf, even if it’s a fey-lineage racial template. There will definitely be examples of what you can mix and match to make which classic races.

[Xervous]

I think this is going to be the future of d&d, honestly. Humans are going to get their feat at first level, but most other races are going to be mix and match.



Disagree. You can still call it an elf, even if it’s a fey-lineage racial template. There will definitely be examples of what you can mix and match to make which classic races.

The point of argument is not an elf or a human with longer life and pointy ears that you can call an elf and have most people understand because it’s both a common concept and one that’s minimally divergent from humans (a hat if you will) or the typical setting. I’m taking aim specifically at the generic custom race that is not derived from a shared understanding.

When the range of options is presented as arbitrarily wide (you can make animal Q as a humanoid) you end up with two states for a concept. Either it is something provided through the system via an example (This is how you make an elf, these are what elves have in this campaign setting) or it’s a collection of features that cannot be conveyed by a simple utterance of the race’s name. Do tell me what comes to mind when I say ‘The party encounters a Lengu’.

Any of the defined ‘this is how to build an X’ become the real races, the sort of rules and lore that can be discussed without requiring copious homebrew disclaimers and someone outside the game framework explaining stuff to you. Campaign settings and adventure paths will have defined races that can be discussed.

Lengu means nothing. I can’t go to a GM and simply ask to play a Lengu, I’ll get a funny look. I can’t simply ask where are the Lengi in a given module or setting, there aren’t any by default of course! The concept of Lengu only goes so far as I explain it. Short of getting a cult following and maybe releasing my own campaign setting book the general community will be left scratching their collective heads whenever I throw out the term without an accompanying explanation.

So yes, custom race templates can exist, but it’s an inescapable fact that anything other than a template that simultaneously justifies all its outputs will lack setting and system tie ins for all the individual outputs not detailed by the system.

It’s not necessarily bad, it’s just a consequence of moving to a template. Seeing how receptive the general D&D community is to suggestions and sidebars however... there’d be a lot of momentum to allow only the ‘official’ races. GM empowerment eh?

[rlc]

The point of argument is not an elf or a human with longer life and pointy ears that you can call an elf and have most people understand because it’s both a common concept and one that’s minimally divergent from humans (a hat if you will) or the typical setting. I’m taking aim specifically at the generic custom race that is not derived from a shared understanding.

When the range of options is presented as arbitrarily wide (you can make animal Q as a humanoid) you end up with two states for a concept. Either it is something provided through the system via an example (This is how you make an elf, these are what elves have in this campaign setting) or it’s a collection of features that cannot be conveyed by a simple utterance of the race’s name. Do tell me what comes to mind when I say ‘The party encounters a Lengu’.

Any of the defined ‘this is how to build an X’ become the real races, the sort of rules and lore that can be discussed without requiring copious homebrew disclaimers and someone outside the game framework explaining stuff to you. Campaign settings and adventure paths will have defined races that can be discussed.

Lengu means nothing. I can’t go to a GM and simply ask to play a Lengu, I’ll get a funny look. I can’t simply ask where are the Lengi in a given module or setting, there aren’t any by default of course! The concept of Lengu only goes so far as I explain it. Short of getting a cult following and maybe releasing my own campaign setting book the general community will be left scratching their collective heads whenever I throw out the term without an accompanying explanation.

So yes, custom race templates can exist, but it’s an inescapable fact that anything other than a template that simultaneously justifies all its outputs will lack setting and system tie ins for all the individual outputs not detailed by the system.

It’s not necessarily bad, it’s just a consequence of moving to a template. Seeing how receptive the general D&D community is to suggestions and sidebars however... there’d be a lot of momentum to allow only the ‘official’ races. GM empowerment eh?

So I think we agree that there should at least be several different templates with examples of how to build different cookie cutter versions of races, while also customizing things more, rather than just a simple generic humanoid template.
There’s definitely going to be nuance and subtleties, even if their not subtle enough to please everybody.

[Maat Mons]

Clearly, a Lengu is a Tengu with a partially Lung-Dragon ancestry. I mean, what else would it be? It's pretty obvious from the name.

[Xervous]

Clearly, a Lengu is a Tengu with a partially Lung-Dragon ancestry. I mean, what else would it be? It's pretty obvious from the name.

Actually it’s a four armed ape that you’d most likely encounter as a straight talking, highly competitive and at the very least successful merchant. I could go on at length but that’s tangential to the thread.

Nuh uh, that’s not a Lengu. You have to use a different word for that.

[137beth]

A very non-humanoid species. I want the game to have robust rules for non-humanoid PCs, but if they were added in a supplement then they would be supported in the rest of the game.

If that's off the table, then I'd probably say orcs.

[TigerT20]

So I think we agree that there should at least be several different templates with examples of how to build different cookie cutter versions of races, while also customizing things more, rather than just a simple generic humanoid template.
There’s definitely going to be nuance and subtleties, even if their not subtle enough to please everybody.

You mean like with backgrounds? The backgrounds everyone always customises instead of just picking one of the examples and calling it a day, possibly not even being aware of the fact that you can customise them?

Ok, sure, I would hope that WotC would give more space to a race builiding system and make it more obvious that that's the default than they did with backgrounds, but they still have to struggle with the players that just go "ok I'm making a level 3 human fighter so I'll read the stat block for human, the abilities for fighter up to level 3 and pick the soldier background".

[Gyor]

I base my choices on logic, what races appear in multiple setting, so adding them to the PHB will reduce reprintijg them in setting books?

1. Goblins appear in many MtG settings, the Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Exandia, ect..., so they are a logical inclusive.

2. Orcs as a playable race are in FR, Eberron, Exandia, and possibly in some future MtG setting books.

3. Aasimar, borderline core already as a version appears in the DMG. Aasimar appear in FR, Eberron, Exandia, Planescape, and possibly other settings.

3. Genasi Appear in FR, Planescape, Eberron, Darksun, Exandia, and possibly more.

4. Goliaths appear in FR, Eberron, and Exandia setting.

5. Bugbears appear in Exandia, FR, and Eberron

6. Hobgoblins appear in Exandia, FR, and Eberron and the MtG setting Shadowmoor (which may in the future get a setting book).

7. Tritons can be found on Theros, FR, Planescape and possibly in the future Eberron and MtG settings.

8. Tabaxi can be found in FR, Planescape, and Exandia.

9. Lizardfolk can be found in FR, Exandia, Eberron.

10. Tortles can be found in FR, Exandia, and Mystara.