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​

 

[Cahlwyn]

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

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!

Seriously! I had given up on forums and stuff years ago after the "norms" invaded the internet and our hobby and the internet has turned into a whiny cesspool. I finally decide to come back looking for chat, see a thread with new info on the newest product, and I see this infantile hyperbole bullshtacka! Whiny little babies and that is being kind.

 

[SkidAce]

Nope -- seems they arbitrarily changed the race for 5e.

When kenku were introduced back in the original Fiend Folio, they worshipped Pazuzu, the demon lord that, at that time, ruled the top layer of the Abyss. Later, in Greyhawk, they were associated with Vecna after his ascension to divinity. They've been evil for a long time, but apparently not anymore.

Guess that answers my question about kenku -- but still curious what they'll do with the still-evil 5e races.

--
Pauper

I'm looking at my Fiend Folio, and Kenku are neutral and no mention of Pazuzu. (pg 56.) It even says they tend to annoy versus kill.

 

[Pauper]

I'm looking at my Fiend Folio, and Kenku are neutral and no mention of Pazuzu.

Guess that's what I get for trusting Wikipedia.

Most kenku worship the demon prince Pazuzu, though Quorlinn is worshipped by those not so disposed toward evil. Kenku clerics usually venerate Vecna.

Their alignment is also listed as 'usually neutral evil', though I can imagine that's a Third Edition-era designation.

--
Pauper

 

[TwoSix]

Their alignment is also listed as 'usually neutral evil', though I can imagine that's a Third Edition-era designation.

It's almost like many of these race concepts are amorphous at best, and quite amenable to being stretched into new concepts without breaking D&D. Almost.

 

[MiraMels]

Nope -- seems they arbitrarily changed the race for 5e.

When kenku were introduced back in the original Fiend Folio, they worshipped Pazuzu, the demon lord that, at that time, ruled the top layer of the Abyss. Later, in Greyhawk, they were associated with Vecna after his ascension to divinity. They've been evil for a long time, but apparently not anymore.

Guess that answers my question about kenku -- but still curious what they'll do with the still-evil 5e races.

--
Pauper

What are they going to do about the still-evil races?

Same thing they did with the Drow and the Duergar, I figure. This isn't the first time that 'evil races' have been offered as a player race option in 5th editon's history.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

As a DM, I look forward to more monstrous (N)PCs with class levels. It just seems more fair, somehow, to hit the PCs with a goblin sorcerer who casts Fireball and then hides in the darkness with Nimble Escape--it seems more fair to do that when goblin sorcerers are explicitly an option that they already knew about and had available to them. Sure, I could have fiated in exactly such an NPC before and said, "And BTW, he retains his Nimble Escape feature and gets a +2 to Dex", but it would feel kind of cheap, you know? But NPCs who play by the same rules as PCs don't make me feel bad at all when they stomp the PCs. That Scro Eldritch Knight you challenged to single combat just knocked you down and Action Surged for a total of five greataxe attacks to the face at advantage, doing 100 HP of damage before you even got to act? Tough cookies, you knew he was 11th-13th level when you challenged him.

Fairness consists in not doing arbitrary things to the PCs, and telegraphing threats to the players before implementing those threats. Having specific rules for monstrous (N)PCs can only be a boon in that endeavor.

I share your distaste for the bugbear's "per-combat" mechanic, though. I'll just make that "once per minute" and call it good.

 

[flametitan]

I share your distaste for the bugbear's "per-combat" mechanic, though. I'll just make that "once per minute" and call it good.

It could've just been worded more like the Assassin's abilities, which also trigger in similar conditions (requiring you to hit a surprised combatant). After that just limit it to once on your turn and you'd achieve basically the same thing as what 1/combat was going for.

 

[Sunseeker]

What are they going to do about the still-evil races?

Same thing they did with the Drow and the Duergar, I figure. This isn't the first time that 'evil races' have been offered as a player race option in 5th editon's history.

If they'd step away from condemning or applauding entire races on a 9-alignment-system and actually explained what makes them tend towards being "bad beings" we wouldn't have this problem in the first place. The problem becomes that D&D classifies races by what are typically social, cultural, and religious​ traditions. The idea that any creature short of a demon or angel is "born evil" is poisonous to gaming.

 

[bedir than]

You're right. "Bad" is too mild a word.

For my group, the book might as well not have movie or or orc playable stats. Those stats are only usable for building NPCs using PC mechanics. Your group differs, and that's fine, but that Wild a deviation from the rest of the system is an awful sign, IMO.

I find the choice to have no negatives on any PC horrible design. Some races are not "average" at some things. Making them so places balance higher than verisimilitude. I'd rather it be just a neg-1 because that's a mild nudge that does not implicitly take away a bonus or add a full die modification.

 

[Sunseeker]

I find the choice to have no negatives on any PC horrible design. Some races are not "average" at some things. Making them so places balance higher than verisimilitude. I'd rather it be just a neg-1 because that's a mild nudge that does not implicitly take away a bonus or add a full die modification.

I'm gonna be "that guy" and suggest that racial stat bonuses, plus or minus, should be removed entirely. I will further posit that if a race cannot be creatively represented by interesting and fun racial features, that race should be reevaluated until it can either be suchly represented or is scrapped as a player race.

And this may just be me, but for all the optimizing I do, a unique and interesting race will still catch my eye faster than a +2 in the appropriate check-box.