D&D 5E What new linages do you want?

[Nutation]

I'm probably going against the grain here, but unless we're going campaign-specific, I'd like less "fantastic creature" PC races/species/lineages, and divide humans in a dozen distinct lineages.

It's already a problem in Adventurers League. Every player is supposed to feel welcome, so when they bring their cat people, their turtle people, their fey, and so on into the game I'm running, then the isolated village NPCs are supposed to take it all in stride.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Say I want to play a flying octopus that can breathe air, and has the ability to manifest all physical attacks psionically, and its species came from outer space, so naturally, said octopus has a space ship to whisk the players to other planets, and also, use lasers on the ship to fight space battles. Is that still D&D?

Yep, I am sure Gary would allow it.

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

It's already a problem in Adventurers League. Every player is supposed to feel welcome, so when they bring their cat people, their turtle people, their fey, and so on into the game I'm running, then the isolated village NPCs are supposed to take it all in stride.

Exactly. It is incredibly selfish of players to think they can airdrop any species they want into a game, and the DM will automatically accommodate that species into the setting.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Dog people, absolutely! I'm shocked these haven't existed in D&D for a long time.

In fact, an "Awakened Animal" race would be fun, with abilities you can choose to play as, say, a wizard's familiar or a druid's companion.

Spider people would be neat too. You could tie it into mythological story weavers.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Hmm.

I'm having a hard time thinking of one that's really missing, especially after the Space UA.

Either an Undead lineage (if lineage is roughly equal to templates) or Derro, or a plant person race.

Yeah, that seems good. One of those.

we have no Aberration yet.

 

[el-remmen]

Exactly. It is incredibly selfish of players to think they can airdrop any species they want into a game, and the DM will automatically accommodate that species into the setting.

But this has nothing to do with what the OP is asking about. DMs and players have to work out what is available in their games, that should be a given. The OP is just asking about what options people would like to see, not making a post demanding that all games must allow all lineages. Your "Is it really D&D?" derailment is (at best) preferable in its own thread, though to be honest it feels like a pointless question. It is ALL D&D - the people at the table are the ones who decide that.

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

But this has nothing to do with what the OP is asking about. DMs and players have to work out what is available in their games, that should be a given. The OP is just asking about what options people would like to see, not making a post demanding that all games must allow all lineages. Your "Is it really D&D?" derailment is (at best) preferable in its own thread, though to be honest it feels like a pointless question. It is ALL D&D - the people at the table are the ones who decide that.

Once again, we are dealing with the thin edge of the wedge. Talking about "what would people like to add" quickly morphs into "I want you to add these to your game, otherwise you are limiting my fun, and you then by definition, a bad DM".

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

But this has nothing to do with what the OP is asking about. DMs and players have to work out what is available in their games, that should be a given. The OP is just asking about what options people would like to see, not making a post demanding that all games must allow all lineages. Your "Is it really D&D?" derailment is (at best) preferable in its own thread, though to be honest it feels like a pointless question. It is ALL D&D - the people at the table are the ones who decide that.

Oh, and it is the DM that decides what is allowed at the table. No one else. The players ratify those decisions by either staying, or walking away from the table. A D&D table is not a democracy.

 

[el-remmen]

Once again, we are dealing with the thin edge of the wedge. Talking about "what would people like to add" quickly morphs into "I want you to add these to your game, otherwise you are limiting my fun, and you then by definition, a bad DM".

Despite fearing that it will continue the derailment, I can't help myself and give the only rational response I can think of: You are taking an imagined scenario at the table and deciding that it should limit the options in the game that others are fine with. If you don't have player buy-in with your view of the setting/game, the answer lies with talking it out with those players, not yelling into the wind about what should or should not be published - esp. not in a thread of people happily discussing possibilities.

And for the record, I prefer humanocentric games - but I long ago got over any arrogance that my preferences equate what is best for the game or for other people's tables. Instead, I get player buy-in and figure out compromised exceptions when I need to and then . . . SHOCKER. . . we all have fun.

 

[bedir than]

For lineage (using as WotC does) there's not a playable were-person that could follow rules similar to dhampir and the rest from Van Richten's.

For a new race I would dig Hybsil