• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

D&D General What Races/Species do you think are missing from Dungeons and Dragons?

If you want a word from real-life lore, it's probably however a Mandarin Chinese speaker would pronounce the kanji for kemonomimi. Shapechanging animals have a long history* in East Asian mythology.** If you're want to pull form DnD lore that's hengenyokai, which is also Japanese. But DnD has had a problem of thinking "Japan" when they're trying to think "Asia."

The main problem with using gumiho as evil kitsune is I wouldn't want to only reference to Korean mythology to be 'like Japan but evil.' So one would want to do a lot more research there.

* often as "good wife material", for some reason

** and everywhere else

Well it is psionics.
I know the chinese is Yaoguai but not the Korean or if the Japanese have a clear category as youkai is like saying fairy, hell a few crossed over to full god.

the issue with psionics is more use in party and having them as something beyond strange one-off special guys which always makes something not work in a setting.
the options always lack both a core look and place they could be put, most just look to human or are mutant humans the rest lack a setting function and a cool look.

it would need to be done as core for a setting book like how Eberron has artificers.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

A lot of PC races from 2nd Ed were published in Dragon Magazine.



Dragon #244

Fainil are drows with bat-like traits, Telvars are like the raptorans from Races of the Wild. Ashiera are winged fishfolk. And masgai are winged antropomorphic insects.

oh hadnt encountered the Fainil before - Batwinged Drow Tieflings is more interesting than spider drow

Sheshayans and Zygodacts make for good rp challenge but are more Sci-fi than fantasy
 

Purebllood Yuan-Ti have should be a core race playable as a PC. Dwellers of the Forbidden City was my first AD&D module, and I have always loved them. They would bring a Robert E Howard flavor to the game, ala King Kull-Stygian Snake People.
 

I'm legit surprised they haven't done Lupin at all in 5E, especially with how Tabaxi have become fairly popular and pretty much kicked Rakasta out of the cat-people slot. Can do them as wolves or dogs, but dog-headed folks got mythology backing to 'em.

Outside of that, where's the beetlefolk? You make one as a stag beetle type, one as a rhino beetle type, both have a bonus to throwing each other around, you're gold. But the closest D&D's ever had was those weird 'Yeah they just have stalk-eyed fly type eyes' underdark beetles or those weevilfolk from 1E
 

For me it would be races based on dogs. Large dogs could be trackers and attack dogs while small dogs could have resistance to being frightened.

What races do you think are missing from Dungeons and Dragons that should have already made it in?
What do you mean by D&D? There are a huge number of heritages in Level Up, including a dog heritage and culture, and it's not too hard to make more. I've made a ton of them myself.
 


What do you mean by D&D? There are a huge number of heritages in Level Up, including a dog heritage and culture, and it's not too hard to make more. I've made a ton of them myself.
I'd figure by D&D we're talking the official stuff

I got homebrew Lupin, beetlefolk, two versions of Formians, and even those random bat people 3E pushed hard, but ain't meaning much given how folks tend to tread homebrew
 

This probably won't be a popular option, but I'd like more options that aren't human shaped. Creatures like the displacer beast, owlbear, and blink dog are iconic, and while you'd have to do some rebalancing and maybe figure out rules for a character that doesn't have hands, I'd appreciate the opportunity for weirder options like that.
There's a 5e-compatible book set in the world of The Wizard of Oz that has talking animals, in the Oz and Narnia style. Pretty cool stuff.
 

Unfortunately, any game that includes melee attack ranges is going to be leery of creating an actually Large player race. Going from "I can strike 8 squares, or 24 with reach" to "I can strike 12 squares, or 32 with reach" is a HUGE buff for melee and completely useless (or even detrimental) for anyone that drops unfriendly AoEs, including other people in your party. That kind of wildly build-specific power, where it's phenomenal in one specific way and weak/terrible for anything else, does not play nicely with most ideas of game balance.

I'm not saying it can't be done. Just that "increase your melee target area by 50% and turn 10' wide hallways into hard chokepoints and 20' wide ones into soft chokepoints" is really, really powerful. That would generally mean the whole rest of the race probably needs to be ribbons and penalties, and would very likely be stuck typecast for melee bruisers (Fighters, Paladins, maybe Monks for grapple shenanigans, almost never casters).

There's a reason 4e gave us a Tiny race, but did not give us a Large race. Large matters that much.
I really think the concern about large species balance is overblown. A large creature should have all sorts of logistical issues that have every logical reason to come up at least as often as any combat benefit. Heck, think of how many medium enemies could surround such a character.
 

In 5e, reach is balanced. Because. There is only one Reaction per round. In earlier editions of D&D, the opportunity attacks interacted with reach in crazy ways. But that doesnt happen in 5e.

Whether the 5e Reaction is against one target at 5 feet or one target at 10 feet doesnt matter.


Moreover, ideally, Large size has no mechanics. Something like Reach would be a separate mechanic that had Large size as a prereq.
Disagree hard. Things that are different should be mechanically represented as different.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top