Part of me wonders if it's not going to be...
Human
-- Human
-- Half-Elf
-- Half-Orc
...or something similar.
As I asked Sadrik, why list it this way at all? What is the benefit? With wild elves and high elves and drow at least they are all elves. But with humans and half-humans, what is the end goal?
Besides I see it working out more like:
Human
Elf, wild
Elf, high
Dwarf, hill
Dwarf, mountain
Halfling, tallfellow*
Halfling, longfoot*
Gnome, wood*
Gnome, mountain*
Half-orc
Half-elf
Tiefling
Aasimar**
Dragonborn
(and there are certainly others I would add)
*Whatever the variant is called.
**I think it needs to be included if Tiefling is.
Ok agreed, I mean this is a weird PC race. I think it could better be like this then? I think Kobold's make interesting character races. Many of the monster races can make interesting pcs as the reformed monster. We kind of get that with teiflings, and half-orcs and that story can only go so far.
I also think kobolds are more intersting. I've had a few Kobold PCs or major (usually friendly) NPCs. I have no objection to them being the PHB, I doubt they will be but that's another matter. No, my objection is why you are classifying them under Lizard Folk when they are dragonic. It is like classifying Dragons under dinosaurs. While there is a time they may have had some kind of familial ties I think those days are far enough behind them that I wouldn't put them under the dinosaur/lizard folk banner anymore.
Dragonborn
- Lizardfolk
- Kobold
- Half-dragon
You once again forgot to put your titular race into your actual category. I only mention this really because you put human into your human category but forgot with dragonborn/lizardfolk. Also, once again, lizardfolk =/= dragonborn. They aren't a type or variation on them. Troglodytes are conceivably a type of lizard folk. Even putting dragonborn into the lizard folk section makes more sense than the reverse.
And I already gave you my thoughts on half-dragons. Regardless of parentage, I see it as a template and so I don't think it belongs in the same areas as true races anymore than vampire or werewolf do. Dhampir (I hope I'm spelling that right) and Shifters on the other hand are races and could. Do you see the distinction?
Clearly you now know which side I fall on.
Well not really.
But even so, if you gave an opinion on which should be in that isn't the same as giving an argument of which should be in.
An interesting thing that I think I will likely use in one of my campaigns and actually have used in the past is.
Human
- Standard
- Elf blooded (half-elf)
- Orc blooded (half-orc)
- Fiend blooded (teifling)
- Dragon blooded (dragonborn)
All speak common, all are human first but exhibit minor traits from their distant fore-fathers. Perhaps a whole kingdom and all of it's people are humans of one particular ilk. They all look human with minor features perhaps odd hair color, eye color, or complexion.
Anecdotal. Even if it weren't it doesn't accurately describe the way the races are in D&D. Simply put, I can see the logic and elegance in what you did in your own game, but I can also see why it simply doesn't describe or fit into something like the PHB that WotC will release.
Well these are the least played races from my experience. put them under one banner and you save space. You can still make each one as unique as separate but you save space. You can even add in the kender as a subrace too.
Halfling
Once again, anecdotal. I'm not trying to convince you with reasons relating to my personal game experience. I'm trying to give actual REASONS why something should or should not be a certain way. With creatures that ARE the same race then yes I think you will save space. Like having all elves be elves and all humans be humans. Even with the kender and halfling you are saving space. But you make things confusing and are out right disingenuous when you lump a race that has nothing to do with the others into a category that it doesn't belong. If you are taking "halfling" to include all short people, why not throw in dwarves and kobolds too? They're about as much alike as gnomes are.
No, the reason that something like this is anecdotal is that just because you haven't seen much play with those races and can't see the differences they must not be there. If anyone else does, me for example, then your anecdote is invalid. I've long had differences in both races and found meaningful places for both. I've changed some of the details in my game in order to do this, to further divide them, but as written they are biologically different, mentally different, even have different origins entirely. Gnomes aren't just another race of halfling. Tallfellow and longfoot or whatever the names of the three races of halfling are in Tolkien's books - THOSE are variations on the same creature. Same with elves, dwarves and humans. At no point did Tolkien call halflings a race of humans, or so on. Even the orks got their own race distinction after being mutated. Even kender are acknowledged to be a variation of halfling (right?), same with the cannibalistic ones from dark sun. But whenever a (more recent) D&D setting or book has both halflings and gnomes they are listed in different sections.