D&D 5E 5e Tieflings and Dragonborn

[DMZ2112]

All I can say is that I have no interest in adding dragonborn, tieflings (or warforged, or gnomes for that matter) into my campaign world. So I simply hope they're clearly indicated as "only existing when the DM indicates they do".

Just to add to what KM has already said, this is definitely the best thing of the "Basic D&D" free release. All you have to do is tell your players that you're playing Basic D&D, plus any rules you choose to include from the PHB, MM, and DMG. Basic D&D makes few assumptions. When a player asks you, "Can I play a warforged?" you reply, "Did I say you could play a warforged?" And when they say, "No, but it is in the book," you reply, "Actually, no it isn't." Because it's not. You can also giggle a bit, if you want. I'll probably giggle.

I hope that 5e art makes the Dragonborn actually look like, you know, dragons. With the lack of wings and horns, I honestly felt that the the 4e art made Dragonborn look like Yuan-ti or perhaps Lizardfolk.

I'll pass on wings for control reasons, but tails. TAILS.

 

[Tovec]

STANDARD/CORE RACES
Human [standard racial benefits, sub-races with alternate benefits optional]
--Urbane
--Tribal

I'm not sure I understand this particular distinction.

Elf [racial benefits dependent on sub-race]
--High
--Wood
--Drow [apparently. bleh]

Dwarf [racial benefits dependent on sub-race]
--Hill
--Mountain

Halfling [standard racial benefits, sub-races with alternate benefits optional]
--Hairfoot
--Stout
--Tallfellow

OPTIONAL RACES
Gnome [racial benefits dependent on sub-race]
--Forest
--Rock
[svirfneblin a.k.a. "Deep Gnomes" have no business being a PC race unless the entire campaign is taking place in a setting's underdark/world. They have no desire and/or culture/society to be had on the surface world -much like duerger or drow, though I have additional issues with them.]

Hybrids [racial benefits dependent on sub-race]
--Half-Elf
--Half-Orc
[--Half-Ogre, too, if I were calling the shots]

I'm actually okay with this more or less. I would also put the underdark races together, but I can see why WotC would put Drow in the PHB and not the others (if it ends up going that way).

I am curious why "hybrids" is a term, but again, I can live with it.

Dragonborn [racial benefits dependent on sub-race] (Since they are going to be there. again blech.)
--Metallic, the race born of dragons (or created by their gods or whatever) that has a society/culture and perpetuates itself (4e style, I guess).
--Chromatic, the creatures caused by curse or specifically "blessed" or otherwise bred in some deliberate fashion as servants/soldiers/etc... (kinda shades of old school "abishai" [sp?]).
--Half-dragon: the dragon-blooded/"-born" individuals bred with a non-dragon race. Not a "Hybrid" race as those are "Human + Other." Half-dragons are "Dragon + Other."

My own quibble about this is that I don't see half-dragons as a "dragonborn" or belonging in a group with really any of these other true races. In my head half-dragons worked amazingly well as a template to be added to another race, but isn't a race itself. It seems as off to me as adding a human template to a dwarf or halfling.

I totally agree with those who think if you're presenting a playable as PCs "lower-planes" race...and likely will include elemental-plane races ("inner-planes" if you want to count shadow plane folks) at some later period, there is no defensible reason not to have a PC "upper planes" race. I would quite agree with "Planetouched" being the Race with "Aasimar/Genasi/Tiefling" -or even just "Upper/Elemental/Lower Plane" being the sub-race options. HOWever, since we know that Tieflings are going to be included out the gate and Aasimar/Genasi/other "Planetouched" are not, then they have to be considered in the same "Race/sub-races" structure as everyone else. So...

Yeah, I'm not sure why but it still bugs me that 4e included the Tiefling but no Aasimar. I liked the aasimar. Just seemed off to have one without the other. I hope that 5e doesn't fail to include the aasimar while including a tiefling race.

I kind of disagree with the planetouched race thing though. I never saw Gensai as planetouched; just like I don't see elementals as outsiders. But as with the PF rules on the subject, I can probably be persuaded for various reasons to deal with it if it is handled well.

Tiefling [racial benefits dependent on sub-race]
--Infernal, 4e style "race".
--Fiendish (i.e. any "lower plane" critter blood), Planescape style "individuals".

I think WotC needs to either bring the two tieflings MORE in line or LESS. If leaving them as they are, I see it working out about as well as trying to shoehorn the Elemental Archons and Celestial Archons under the same banner and leaving it be. So, I suggest either calling one of the two races (and I'd vote for the 4e ones even though I like their look more, though their flavour far less) by another name OR actually explaining that both are actually Tieflings, Asmodeus' tieflings and tieflings by the original method. Basically either splitting them off to make the 4e brand stronger or make it weaker by having it subsumed by the Planescape brand. I'm not seeing ways around it. It won't work having two very different creatures sharing one name in this disjointed manner.

All I can say is that I have no interest in adding dragonborn, tieflings (or warforged, or gnomes for that matter) into my campaign world. So I simply hope they're clearly indicated as "only existing when the DM indicates they do".

Ditto. Though especially with races I've always treated it that way, I just hope it is made explicit.

I'll pass on wings for control reasons, but tails. TAILS.

Ooooh, tails. That would be sweet.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Just to add to what KM has already said, this is definitely the best thing of the "Basic D&D" free release. All you have to do is tell your players that you're playing Basic D&D, plus any rules you choose to include from the PHB, MM, and DMG. Basic D&D makes few assumptions. When a player asks you, "Can I play a warforged?" you reply, "Did I say you could play a warforged?" And when they say, "No, but it is in the book," you reply, "Actually, no it isn't." Because it's not. You can also giggle a bit, if you want. I'll probably giggle.

I can see how that might help a fledgeling GM, but personally, I never had a problem being willing to excise a PHB race or class from a campaign* because it didn't fit, and neither have most of my GMs over the past 3 decades. FWIW, most of those I've played under who DID exclude PHB elements got rid of Paladins and Monks.








* I rarely do it, but I'm not hesitant.

 

[DMZ2112]

I can see how that might help a fledgeling GM, but personally, I never had a problem being willing to excise a PHB race or class from a campaign* because it didn't fit, and neither have most of my GMs over the past 3 decades. FWIW, most of those I've played under who DID exclude PHB elements got rid of Paladins and Monks.
* I rarely do it, but I'm not hesitant.

Someone says something along these lines every time this topic comes up.

It's not a matter of not being able to say no. It's a matter of circumventing the inevitable tantrum once "no" has been said. Legitimacy originating from the rules is just about the only thing non-club players respect anymore.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Someone says something along these lines every time this topic comes up.

It's not a matter of not being able to say no. It's a matter of circumventing the inevitable tantrum once "no" has been said. Legitimacy originating from the rules is just about the only thing non-club players respect anymore.

I won't say that I haven't seen a player pirch a fit if I rule something out, but those never bothered me. I simply stuck to my guns, "___________ doesn't fit in this campaign world. If that's a deal-breaker for you, so be it."

The last time it happened, nobody got bent out of shape, but there were enough objections to what I had drafted that I simply decided not to run the campaign. Not out of petulance, but because that game wasn't right for the group.

 

[DMZ2112]

I won't say that I haven't seen a player pirch a fit if I rule something out, but those never bothered me.

They bother me for two reasons. One, they are a time sink, and roleplaying doesn't need another one of those. Two, players questioning the dungeon master at the table is just bad policy. Everything in roleplay derives from the dungeon master's authority. It doesn't matter whether you capitulate to player demands or not; an argument undermines your authority, and the longer the disagreement goes on the more authority gets undermined. Head it off at the pass and your game is better as a direct result.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

They bother me for two reasons. One, they are a time sink, and roleplaying doesn't need another one of those. Two, players questioning the dungeon master at the table is just bad policy. Everything in roleplay derives from the dungeon master's authority. It doesn't matter whether you capitulate to player demands or not; an argument undermines your authority, and the longer the disagreement goes on the more authority gets undermined. Head it off at the pass and your game is better as a direct result.

First of all, it's not much of a time sink to handle it as I described. I don't argue: once I utter that sentence above, the players either design acceptable PCs sans banned material or they don't see play. And if enough don't care for it, as I said, I simply don't start the campaign. No acrimony: the next guy steps behind the DM screen, or we do something else.

In addition, pre-game releases let me handle a lot of this online well before the game. When I send out an email outlining what I'm planning on running, though it may not be complete, there are enough guidelines that it's unlikely that someone will design something radically at odds with the campaign's structure. As such, they won't have gotten attached to a concept they can't play, and are far less likely to dig in their heels and fuss.

 

[Bluenose]

STANDARD/CORE RACES
Human [standard racial benefits, sub-races with alternate benefits optional]
--Urbane
--Tribal

Assuming you mean Urban rather than Urbane, it's still not a distinction I'd use. Most people in a pre-industrial society live outside the city anyway, without necessarily living in anything approaching a "tribal" society. Urban is perhaps a valid definition if it's used in the sense that most people live within a day's travel of an urban centre - even if one as small as a market town - and could travel to a larger one when necessary. I'd contrast that with a society where most people live in small settlements that are largely self-contained and where travel to a town was a significant event - perhaps a valid use for Tribal. I'd add two further categories for non-settled groups, one for mounted nomadic groups that move from place to place with their herds - call that Nomads - and another for hunter-gatherer groups that don't stay for more than a season or so in any location before moving on to another - obviously, Hunter-Gatherer as a description.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Faulty logic, or at the very least very sloppy game development.

You fail to explain how it is either.

First, every person that I have met would much rather play an aasimar than a tiefling. I know everyone keeps telling me that people like to play tieflings, and even if there ARE, the fact that so many people ALSO like to play Aasimar. Why exclude those people. Seems presumptuous to me. Second it makes no sense that they stress good aligned campaigns, heroic characters all of this good focused stuff and then NO AASIMAR!? I mean.. wtf. In almost every edition we are always pushed towards good aligned campaigns, and then some sort of supplement comes out for playing evil campaigns etc etc.

Why "exclude" any race? Because the PHB has limited space.

Anecdotes don't matter, as I was told. Also, "rather an Aasimar than a Tiefling" is meaningless if they wouldn't actually play either, given the choice! I'd rather play a Kender than a Gully Dwarf but...

WotC have tons of market research from 3E, and insane ultra-detailed data from 4E (thanks to the Character Builder), so they know what people actually play. This knowledge has lead to them putting Tieflings in the 4E and 5E PHBs. Pretty much QED.

Good/evil has nothing to do with it. Tieflings do not tend towards evil strongly in any edition but 3.XE (they're not Drow!). Nor Aasimar towards good. Putting Tieflings in the "evil" book would be seriously confused and bad, imo.

If this is true, I really wish wizards would stop presuming what it's audience likes and give us a wide variety of options. So far in 5e it sounds like they are trying to do this but looking at 4th edition and their focus... it's not a great track record.

They have limited space. They must make decisions. Someone will always be offended by those, even if it's the guy who loves Illumians. I'm sure you'll have a part-upper-planes race before 5E is over.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Are you trying to say the D&D world isn't like that?

No post-2E TSR or WotC-published world (unsure before that) is like that, and species-hate-type reaction modifiers are largely or entirely absent from 3E onwards (and limited even before that), being DM's discretion.

So yeah, I'm saying, by default, the D&D world is definitely not like that. You want to make it like that? Fair enough, it's your game, and hell, I'll even agree that it'd be more "realistic" in some ways (but feature a lot more genocide and ethnic cleansing and so on!) but that's not how D&D usually rolls.