The 10 Player Races in Volo's Guide Revealed

On its Volo's Guide to Monsters product page, Fantasy Grounds has a screenshot up listing the 10 playable races - Aasimar, Bugbear, Firbolg, Goblin, Goliath, Hobgoblin, Kenku, Kobold, Lizardfolk, Orc, Tabaxi, Triton, Yuan-ti Pureblood.

​

Product Page: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/store/product.xcp?id=WOTC5EVGM
Screenshot: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/images/screenshots/Screenshots/WOTC5EVGM/New-Monstrous-Races.jpg

Biggest surprise for me is Kenku. Bugbear is also unexpected.

SaveSave
SaveSave​

 

[Philth]

Outside of human, all the races can be considered monster races.

 

[Doctor Futurity]

If Dragonborn, Tiefling, Drow, Goliath, Firbolg, Lizardfolk, Triton, Tabaxi and Kenku are not "monsterous races", there really is no god damn excuse except incompetance and laziness.

So two weeks before the book is slated to be announced, we get absolute, indisputable confirmation from the final product that indeed the primary thing people wanted the book for was completely as shitily done as it possibly could have been. That once again it has fallen into the hands of someone who smugly thought he was being clever by intentionally doing the crappiest job possible.

I am guessing it probably mostly ties back to not wanting to make the PC stats too incongruity with the monster manual entry or some complete bullcrap like that. And so appearing in the Monster Manual decided that for another god damn edition they would be absolutely functionally unplayable... while anything that didn't get shoved into the Monster Manual first gets to start with a clean slate and actually designed with the slightest bit of intelligence and common sense.

It is a good thing the spoilers warned me now not to buy the god damn book. I just feel bad for anyone who was stupid enough to pre-order it.

I'll be using these for PCs and my table priorities are not yours. That does not make me stupid and I reject your "feeling bad for me." I suggest you relax....a lot....and question the need for such unnecessary vitriole.

 

[Zaukrie]

I too like racial limits....I, however, am not about every race and class being optimal. That's what makes there races different to me. I wish spellcaster issues were more specialized. I wish the distinction between different races and classes were much more wide. And, I am buying this for monsters, not player options...

 

[Corwin]

I can finally recreate my ol' 2e character: Glink the Dreadful, Goblin Warlord (military designation, not class). There's already a riding lizard in 5e, so I've got everything I need now to renew my slow, yet inevitable, takeover of the realm!

 

[Pauper]

The thing that amazes me, and I'll have to see if the lore in the book covers this, is that they've now made a bunch of playable versions of 'evil' monsters, despite making the explicit claim in the Player's Handbook that evil monsters are always drawn to evil:

"The evil deities who created other races, though, made those races to serve them. Those races have strong inborn tendencies that match the nature of their gods. Most orcs share the violent, savage nature of the orc god, Gruumsh, and are thus inclined toward evil. Even if an orc chooses a good alignment, it struggles against its innate tendencies for its entire life."

The reference to orcs seems to be just an example; considering that now goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, and kenku are now playable along with orcs, it'll be interesting to see if these races are at least required to take personality traits that reflect their 'inborn' tendency to evil.

--
Pauper

 

[gyor]

I'm very much in favour of Stat penalties and racial limitations. In my old school head, Dwarfs mistrust arcane magic and should have a charisma penalty, Halflings also have no affinity for magic and are weaker than humans, and so on...

I was looking forward to this book for the fluff - the information on monster ecology and society, lair info, and the like. However the general buzz around new playable races puts me off it. I will not play at a table with 'monster races', and I certainly will not DM one. It's probably a good thing therefore that I won't be DMing a 5E campaign for the foreseeable future - hopefully by the time we return to 5E the excitement will have died down and the playable monster races will have faded away.

Tomorrow however, we start a new campaign. It's 1E all the way , wonky xp tables, stat penalties, level limits and old style multiclassing. Gaming as it should be. Heaven.

Its only a small part of the book and you can use the PC races as NPCs with NPC templates and even stuff like half dragon in the MM, instead of PC choices.

 

[JonnyP71]

Its only a small part of the book and you can use the PC races as NPCs with NPC templates and even stuff like half dragon in the MM, instead of PC choices.

That might turn me back in favour of buying a copy....

But as I won't be DMing 5E for a while, it can wait. One of my group owns a FLGS, I can just picture him now wielding a copy as I arrive at his house to run their weekly game....

"Look what I got, and you can be monsters now!" he'll gleefully exclaim.

I'd post my likely reply, but the mods wouldn't approve of the language....

 

[TwoSix]

That might turn me back in favour of buying a copy....

But as I won't be DMing 5E for a while, it can wait. One of my group owns a FLGS, I can just picture him now wielding a copy as I arrive at his house to run their weekly game....

"Look what I got, and you can be monsters now!" he'll gleefully exclaim.

I'd post my likely reply, but the mods wouldn't approve of the language....

I'm sure if you edit out the profanity, it's similar to my response, which is "Yes! I share in your excitement, this is going to be fantastic!"

 

[JonnyP71]

...the exact polar opposite...


(Maybe we should have a thread on here - "Tips for DMs to successfully fake enthusiasm when the players really want to use a game system or subject matter which does not appeal to you.")

 

[MiraMels]

I think people are looking at this from a very skewed angle.

First, the Monster races are presented to emulate the monster, not be balanced like the other races are. The way they are presented is a bit "caveat emptor", which is why they are put at the back of the book without full write ups. (The quick stats alluded to?)

Secondly, two races have penalties. Both are on the monster list. Both are also easily avoided. Orcs take a hit to Int; the most useless stat unless you are a wizard. Orcs can make good sorcerers, bards, warlocks, clerics, and druids. Likewise, a kobold is penalized Str, which means you... have to use ranged weapons or finesse weapons? A kobold picks a rapier over a longsword. Big whoop. The only loss I guess is two-hander kobolds and even then, being small forces them disadvantage anyway.

Oh, they are so limited; one optional race doesn't work for one class and the other optional race is bad at certain builds of melee types. 5e is dead to me!

I mean, I get that what they were going for was a direct translation of the monster stat block. Something that approaches appropriate abilities for player characters, while preserving as many of the Monster Manual features as possible.

I am disappointed in that decision. I understand why it was made, but I'd have greatly preferred an adaptation instead.

I don't want to play the generic Monster Manual orc. I want to play an orc who is also a PC (with everything that entails, given the cultural values of the setting and the usual work of PCs in the world**). I want racial traits that do more to situate my orc in the world, not racial traits that simply tell me how my orc performs in battle.

**To give a brief example from the Player's Handbook, drow PCs are not class-locked based on gender, and have explicitly left Underdark Drow Society.