Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
QB's Monstrous Races
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="QuietBrowser" data-source="post: 6912909" data-attributes="member: 6855057"><p>I've come down with a mild case of food poisoning and it's affecting my mind, so apologies in advance for any brusqueness with this...</p><p></p><p>Centaurs: Think the difference between a draft horse and a racing horse. You would agree that, despite their fundamental shared horseiness, they are still very different to each other in terms of physical capabilities, yes? That's basically the lines I was thinking down. But, I may just be influenced too much by memories of Monster Musume, where centaurs are divided into Common, Heavyweight (warhorse-based), Lightweight (racehorse-based) and a farmhorse-based race I will not name. So... yeah, maybe just making them stand on their own as a singular race and restricting the diversity to "do they have Fey Ancestry or not?" is best.</p><p></p><p>Satyrs: You do have to admit, Fauns were basically characterised as being sweeter, more rational, and generally not wild drunks all the time like their Satyr kin, which is why Nymphs wanted them instead, so, yeah, they technically are the "tamest" of the three. There's a reason why Pathfinder's writeup basically goes "satyrs are all wilderness-wandering party-animals; fauns still like to party, but actually settle down and do work too".</p><p></p><p>Dryads: Because, as I said, I can already replicate all that flavor with an existing class/race combination and marginal reskinning. Female Wild Elf Forest Druid/Enchantress with "Wild Shape" replaced by "Plant Shape", class powers all fluffed as innate magic, casting ability score unified as Charisma, and BAM, I'm done, I have a fully-functional Dryad. Plus, as I said, there's still the whole "I can't go more than X distance from my tree; it's physically impossible!" thing that needs to be essentially replaced for the race to make sense. It's why Anchorites, a priest kit in 2e Ravenloft that lost all their class powers if they went more than 100 meters from their place of worship, were never repeated in any edition afterwards. I <em>do</em> think that Dryads can work, but they <em>need</em> an angle that's more than just "beautiful tree elf plus". The Hamadryad from 4e was actually a pretty good example of this; their flavor is that they represent an "intermediate" point between the generic fae nymphs and the editions' take on Dryads. Still full of faerie magic, but a little more "living tree" than "elf who lives inside a tree", complete with the ability to assume either a dryad's wooden skin for armor or a nymph's blinding beauty as the situation called for.</p><p></p><p>Nymph: At that point, "Nymph" basically becomes less a core race and more a "racial term" (ala "fairy" or "demihuman") that covers all manner of elf-like fae. Note that I do <strong>not</strong> disapprove of this, as honestly it does mesh up with the real world use of the term better than a subrace system probably does. My big issue is, as I said, each kind of nymph needs to be both playable AND interesting to play. I can already make nymphs of earth, air, water and fire by just adding Fey Ancestry to refluffed Genasi; I want my nymphs to have their own distinctive flavor and feel like interesting races. We had Spirit Folk, which are basically more "Japanese" flavored nymphs, back in 3e, and nobody remembers them. That's not a mistake I want to repeat.</p><p></p><p>Fairies: Honestly, I prefer to use "fairy" as "generic term for any Small creature with Fey Ancestry" myself, so keeping Pixies, Sprites and other such "wee folk" with entirely separate racial profiles is all good as far as I'm concerned.</p><p></p><p>Flight: Yeah, I mean, I can see situations where restricting flight at less than 100 feet per turn makes sense, but crippling it all the way down to, like, 10 feet a round doesn't make a lot of sense without very good reason (as with my "flying frog" grippli, who're supposed to be gliding on the wind anyway). that's probably why the Aarakocra came out so weak; WoTC was afraid of its potential to dominate with a 50ft Fly Speed.</p><p></p><p>Fae Goblins: I did say it was a quick and dirty approach. It depends on what kind of flavor you want your "faeblins" to have. But don't underestimate just what playing them up as coming from faerie can do, especially with the unifying fae racial trait.</p><p></p><p>In general... you want to respect the mythos. I take it you're Greek, and I can respect that. But, at the same time, D&D isn't real-life mythology, and sometimes one needs to bend, tweak or outright break the rules in order to make something that people can actually play. Dwarves in D&D are nothing like Nordic Dwarfs - for starters, they've got females, they act with honor, they don't turn into stone when touched by sunlight. Sometimes, things need to change.</p><p></p><p>So, yes, I do understand that this is important to you. But, sometimes, purity does not equate to playability. Who'd want to play a clurichaun if the mechanics enforced that you have to find yourself a wine butty and settle there like a toad in a stone, violently rejecting all attempts to get you to move on whilst there's a drop of booze left in the joint? That's not a lot of fun to adventure with. It's why Halflings in D&D went from straight up Hobbit expies to more adventurous over the editions, to make them more appealing to actually play.</p><p></p><p>I do value your input and your insight. But, sometimes, I can't be 100% mythologically accurate. I'm sorry.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="QuietBrowser, post: 6912909, member: 6855057"] I've come down with a mild case of food poisoning and it's affecting my mind, so apologies in advance for any brusqueness with this... Centaurs: Think the difference between a draft horse and a racing horse. You would agree that, despite their fundamental shared horseiness, they are still very different to each other in terms of physical capabilities, yes? That's basically the lines I was thinking down. But, I may just be influenced too much by memories of Monster Musume, where centaurs are divided into Common, Heavyweight (warhorse-based), Lightweight (racehorse-based) and a farmhorse-based race I will not name. So... yeah, maybe just making them stand on their own as a singular race and restricting the diversity to "do they have Fey Ancestry or not?" is best. Satyrs: You do have to admit, Fauns were basically characterised as being sweeter, more rational, and generally not wild drunks all the time like their Satyr kin, which is why Nymphs wanted them instead, so, yeah, they technically are the "tamest" of the three. There's a reason why Pathfinder's writeup basically goes "satyrs are all wilderness-wandering party-animals; fauns still like to party, but actually settle down and do work too". Dryads: Because, as I said, I can already replicate all that flavor with an existing class/race combination and marginal reskinning. Female Wild Elf Forest Druid/Enchantress with "Wild Shape" replaced by "Plant Shape", class powers all fluffed as innate magic, casting ability score unified as Charisma, and BAM, I'm done, I have a fully-functional Dryad. Plus, as I said, there's still the whole "I can't go more than X distance from my tree; it's physically impossible!" thing that needs to be essentially replaced for the race to make sense. It's why Anchorites, a priest kit in 2e Ravenloft that lost all their class powers if they went more than 100 meters from their place of worship, were never repeated in any edition afterwards. I [I]do[/I] think that Dryads can work, but they [I]need[/I] an angle that's more than just "beautiful tree elf plus". The Hamadryad from 4e was actually a pretty good example of this; their flavor is that they represent an "intermediate" point between the generic fae nymphs and the editions' take on Dryads. Still full of faerie magic, but a little more "living tree" than "elf who lives inside a tree", complete with the ability to assume either a dryad's wooden skin for armor or a nymph's blinding beauty as the situation called for. Nymph: At that point, "Nymph" basically becomes less a core race and more a "racial term" (ala "fairy" or "demihuman") that covers all manner of elf-like fae. Note that I do [B]not[/B] disapprove of this, as honestly it does mesh up with the real world use of the term better than a subrace system probably does. My big issue is, as I said, each kind of nymph needs to be both playable AND interesting to play. I can already make nymphs of earth, air, water and fire by just adding Fey Ancestry to refluffed Genasi; I want my nymphs to have their own distinctive flavor and feel like interesting races. We had Spirit Folk, which are basically more "Japanese" flavored nymphs, back in 3e, and nobody remembers them. That's not a mistake I want to repeat. Fairies: Honestly, I prefer to use "fairy" as "generic term for any Small creature with Fey Ancestry" myself, so keeping Pixies, Sprites and other such "wee folk" with entirely separate racial profiles is all good as far as I'm concerned. Flight: Yeah, I mean, I can see situations where restricting flight at less than 100 feet per turn makes sense, but crippling it all the way down to, like, 10 feet a round doesn't make a lot of sense without very good reason (as with my "flying frog" grippli, who're supposed to be gliding on the wind anyway). that's probably why the Aarakocra came out so weak; WoTC was afraid of its potential to dominate with a 50ft Fly Speed. Fae Goblins: I did say it was a quick and dirty approach. It depends on what kind of flavor you want your "faeblins" to have. But don't underestimate just what playing them up as coming from faerie can do, especially with the unifying fae racial trait. In general... you want to respect the mythos. I take it you're Greek, and I can respect that. But, at the same time, D&D isn't real-life mythology, and sometimes one needs to bend, tweak or outright break the rules in order to make something that people can actually play. Dwarves in D&D are nothing like Nordic Dwarfs - for starters, they've got females, they act with honor, they don't turn into stone when touched by sunlight. Sometimes, things need to change. So, yes, I do understand that this is important to you. But, sometimes, purity does not equate to playability. Who'd want to play a clurichaun if the mechanics enforced that you have to find yourself a wine butty and settle there like a toad in a stone, violently rejecting all attempts to get you to move on whilst there's a drop of booze left in the joint? That's not a lot of fun to adventure with. It's why Halflings in D&D went from straight up Hobbit expies to more adventurous over the editions, to make them more appealing to actually play. I do value your input and your insight. But, sometimes, I can't be 100% mythologically accurate. I'm sorry. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
QB's Monstrous Races
Top