D&D 5E Player Races in Upcoming Volo's Guide to Monsters

[doctorbadwolf]

To be slightly fair (and this is coming from a 4e/5e Dragonborn-lover), both Draconians and Dray (both confirmed as sub-races of Dragonborn) are weird mutant experiments created by arcane casters of Krynn and Athas respectively.

IIRC, draconians were variant DB and the Dray were reflavored, so I wouldn't really count either as indicative of dragonborn origins, but I get your point.

Otoh, that does kind of make dragonborn the first and possibly only draconic humanoid race that doesn't have a mutant/experiment origin.

 

[gyor]

The Orc race is unlikely to explore orc subraces like the Mountain Orc, religious Grey Orcs, the Orogs, or the Tarrunks (misspelled I know) with the PC right up, so fluff wise they can be ANY Orc subrace, Orogs, Mountain Orcs, Grey Orcs, Tarrunks, or hell even Scro (Spelljammer Orcs that appeared in the FR novel Evermeet).

 

[Parmandur]

New preview at Paste Magazine, has the beginning of a Goliath write-up for PC race, page from the Orc pantheon description (detailing Ilneval and Bahgtru) and a monster page for a Tanarukk.

 

[Parmandur]

So, we now know that the full PC writeups go from Firbolg on page 107 to Goliath on page 108; if the listing is strictly alphabetical (could go either way?), then Goblins fo not get a full write up and are probably in the quick rules table. Interesting...

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm so bored with fantasy races with cultures that seem like they couldn't really function.

Frost giants don't grow food or keep animals? Really? Not like...a frost giant enclave somewhere, but the whole culture. Kay.

Goliaths...what. Don't get me wrong. I like Goliaths, but to me they are only usable if you tone down the "they expel or abandon any adult that needs help" stuff. Like...actual irl people from harsh, low resource, environments are (so far as I know without exception) never like that. The opposite is requiredfor the group to survive. Groups become so close knit and interdependent that they will also go far out to their way to find ways for the elderly and otherwise infirm to contribute, and often care for them even when they lag behind.

Also, do Goliaths deteriorate at a much steeper rate than humans do with age? Because, IRL the elderly in harsh, low resource, places tend to be able to keep up well into the grey hairs and deeply wrinkled face stage of life. A whole race that embodies that environment has no elders? Seriously? Even irl cultures that idolize those who die in combat have elders.
Its just very poorly thought out.

Mountain people are anthropoligically unusual compared to city, rural, and non mountain nomads, but they still form fundementally sustainable cultures. Goliaths aren't humans, but they should still have fundamentally sustainable cultures.


The other thing that bugs me is the Firbolgs classes side note. Almost none of it makes sense. The barbarian is a perfectly good totem warrior and hunter. Why would that be rare? Monks only happen in cases of abandoned survivors? What? Why? It's just a really shallow look at the classes, and a missed opportunity.

/rant

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So, we now know that the full PC writeups go from Firbolg on page 107 to Goliath on page 108; if the listing is strictly alphabetical (could go either way?), then Goblins fo not get a full write up and are probably in the quick rules table. Interesting...

Nah, probably in groups. Giant kin, goblinoids, etc.

 

[Demetrios1453]

So, we now know that the full PC writeups go from Firbolg on page 107 to Goliath on page 108; if the listing is strictly alphabetical (could go either way?), then Goblins fo not get a full write up and are probably in the quick rules table. Interesting...

I saw that as well, and it seems odd. But we know from the product blurb on the WotC page itself that goblins as a player race will be detailed in Chapter 2, so that seems to indicate a full write-up and not just a place in a chart. Perhaps the more "out-there" races like the goliath and firbolg are separated out in their own section? Given the page numbering, and how close they are to the beholder pages in Chapter 3, I'm thinking this might be the case...

 

[Prakriti]

Perhaps the more "out-there" races like the goliath and firbolg are separated out in their own section?

Makes sense, separating the evil and monstrous races from the good and neutral, with a big disclaimer on the former, "No, really... clear this with your DM first."

 

[flametitan]

I'm not too thrilled by the inclusion of the Goliath. I know some people wanted the EEPC races in a physical supplement, but that was already fulfilled for the most part by the print on demand feature of DTRPG (Though it could've been better advertised.)

Especially because the current preview doesn't give much in the way of new lore. What it gives us that's new is a quote about how you shouldn't turn to them when you have no other options, as they will just turn their backs on you (though admittedly that one quote feels like it gives me a better perspective on how to play one than the EEPC did).

 

[Parmandur]

The other thing that bugs me is the Firbolgs classes side note. Almost none of it makes sense. The barbarian is a perfectly good totem warrior and hunter. Why would that be rare? Monks only happen in cases of abandoned survivors? What? Why? It's just a really shallow look at the classes, and a missed opportunity.

That makes perfect sense; the Firbolg are chill, so berserker rage will be rare, and they are too laid back to hand their own native monastic tradition, too chaotic. You can do it, they are just setting general expectations for fluff purposes.