D&D 5E Player's Handbook Races

[Charles Wright]

Sorry, no offence intended, but this made me chuckle. Appropriating terms to mean something different from the intention of the original meaning is a D&D tradition that goes back pretty much to the beginning.

Cleric, paladin, gorgon, medusa, pegasus, Bahamut, Baphomet, Tiamat, troglodyte, kobold, lycanthrope ...

You assume (incorrectly) that I don't have a problem with THOSE misappropriated terms, either. I cannot tell you how much it bugs me that "lycanthrope" is used as a catch-all term for all therianthropes.

That said "Tiefling" is doubly offensive to me as it was a very specific word that was coined during the time of 2E to describe "A person tainted by Evil from the Outer Planes". Perhaps they will ditch it and call them "Teuflings" as that was the German word "Tiefling" was bastardized from.

 

[pemerton]

If you actually read the information on the various races of good and celestial creatures, there is all sort of interesting material highlighting differences, distinctions, unique aesthetics and philosophies--basically everything you need for non-boring characters.

For me, at least, the issue with celestial creatures is working out why, if at all, they would come into conflict with heroic PCs.

The answer, it seems to me, is that the PCs must be in conflict with heaven. I've run campaigns where this is a major thing, but I think it's hard to do in a default D&D framework. (I don't use a default D&D framework - eg I don't use alignment, and I don't treat the gods just as NPCs under sole GM control.)

 

[barasawa]

To shave, or not to shave, that might be a dwarf.

Female dwarfs have beards, by Moradin! ...

Meh.
That depends on the campaign setting.
Maybe you'd like Discworld where all Dwarves have beards, and are both referred to and treated as being of the male gender. The matter of a Dwarfs gender is a major taboo. To all the other races, it seems as though there are only male Dwarves, a fact that has caused considerable discussion. For that matter, it's rather difficult for the Dwarfs themselves to determine which are the females. Maybe that's why their birthrate is so low.

I know, I don't sound that excited over this beard thing. I'm not. Honestly, I can't even remember anyone playing a female dwarf character. I'm sure it must have happened at some point, but I'm drawing a complete blank on that. Heck, we've had all kinds of odd things, from magical split personality mage & fighter that shapeshifted from one to the other, werewolves, an avatar of death, kobolds, apostates, a reformed succubus, an evil paladin (don't ask), several dragons, one think tank (it got weird), a half vampire, a lot of minotaurs, a pyromaniacal alchemist with pyrophobia, and a giant halfling. And yet, among all that, I still don't remember even a single female dwarf.

 

[Raduin711]

For me, at least, the issue with celestial creatures is working out why, if at all, they would come into conflict with heroic PCs.

The answer, it seems to me, is that the PCs must be in conflict with heaven. I've run campaigns where this is a major thing, but I think it's hard to do in a default D&D framework. (I don't use a default D&D framework - eg I don't use alignment, and I don't treat the gods just as NPCs under sole GM control.)

The PC's can have allies from time to time. For example, evil demon the pc's have no chance of beating has an angel imprisoned. The PC's release the angel, and the two have a titanic battle while the PC's fight the demon's minions...

 

[pemerton]

The PC's can have allies from time to time. For example, evil demon the pc's have no chance of beating has an angel imprisoned. The PC's release the angel, and the two have a titanic battle while the PC's fight the demon's minions...

Not my personal style, but sure, I can see that.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

You assume (incorrectly) that I don't have a problem with THOSE misappropriated terms, either. I cannot tell you how much it bugs me that "lycanthrope" is used as a catch-all term for all therianthropes.

Therianthrope is a hot, hot word! Needs more use.
[MENTION=63245]Evenglare[/MENTION] - Supernatural's angels are definitely not Good in D&D terms.

As for beardless dwarves, having played with a lot of female players, my experience is very much that they love dwarves, loathe the idea of having to have a beard/shave, so I think it's the right default.

 

[Echohawk]

They actually began before FR. They appeared in the 1e MM2 (1983).

Thri-kreen predate the MM2 even. Their first appearance was in the easy-to-forget Monster Cards, Set 2 in 1982.

 

[Nebulous]

As for Dragonborn, I don't mind the concept, but I didn't like the 4e Dragonborn too much. That was mainly an artwork issue with me. (I know that it comes across as a little petty!) When I first saw the 4e Dragonborn concept artwork, I thought that it was artwork for lizardmen or Yuan-Ti. Where are they wings (even vestigial)? Where are the tails. Anyway, I thought that Monte Cook did a better job with the Dracha from Arcana Evolved. With different artwork and a better backstory, I can see the Dragonborn being a viable race for my campaign.

Just my 2cp

I also did not like 4e dragonborn at all. Petty as well, but maybe it was the artwork. Unless 5th edition makes a substantial change it's a race I won't allow in my campaign. I also have not had players who give a poo about playing one either, so a moot point I guess.

 

[Neonchameleon]

They aren't my favorite (And why isn't Aasimar a base race if Tiefling is one?), but it's just fine since they didn't exclude former base races to include them.

Because almost no one played them in 2e or 3e. In 4e they were folded into Devas.

And I'd be fine with that actually.

It's the chance that they reserve the name "tiefling" in 5e to refer exclusively to the outlier (the 4e version) and rename the 2e/3e tiefling to something else that worries me as a gigantic fan of the race.

The 4e Tiefling was not the outlier. The outlier was (as it so often was) 3.X.

2e and 4e Tieflings come from almost exactly the same place, differing only in one specific. Great-great-great-granddaddy or grandmummy did something bad with powerful dark forces and the Tiefling has power, arrogance, and presence due to this. They are darkly charming, and exude danger and decadence. In 2e the bad thing was sex, in 4e it was making bargains with dark powers. But 99% of the time this difference does not matter. It wasn't the responsibility of the PC, and the PC fits the same range of archetypes.

3.X Tieflings on the other hand are the outlier. Great-great-great-granddaddy or grandmummy did something bad with powerful dark forces, and the Tiefling is deformed and reviled, taking a Charisma penalty. Rather than being darkly charming and dangerous, 3.X Tieflings are deformed and repulsive due to the sins of their forefathers. Which is an entirely different set of archetypes.

5e, if the leak I've seen is accurate manages to split the difference in the most confusing and incoherent way possible. The mechanics give Tieflings their charisma bonus but the fluff has them being spat at in the street.

 

[variant]

5e, if the leak I've seen is accurate manages to split the difference in the most confusing and incoherent way possible. The mechanics give Tieflings their charisma bonus but the fluff has them being spat at in the street.

A high Charisma does not necessarily mean you are liked. It might improve the chances that you are liked, but things such as appearance and simply what you are have a much greater impact on how someone else perceives you.