Currently, yes. But that wasn't always the case. Our species overlapped with Neanderthals, Denisovans, and at least one "ghost species" (that we know of from genetics, but have no fossils for). The further back you go, the more homonin species there were. That we're the only one that survived (well, we interbred with others, so they aren't entirely gone) was not something that was fated.Sure, the real world only manages to support one sentient species.
Character creation is best when the player and DM work together.Why exactly do we believe being dwarven means something in Middle Earth? Because dwarves played notable roles in the foreground - they were protagonists/supporting protagonists for the main narrative - so the world-builder (in this case Tolkien) made sure we had some of that information. Wouldn't the same be true for any PC created for a campaign? Would the DM and player work to ground the PC in specifics that would be relevant to them and give them meaning?
How many playable species were shoehorned into the Forgotten Realms in each edition of D&D? And how many of these species were argued over by the fans before the 4e Dragonborn were introduced to the Realms?The continuing argument about fitting or shoehorning Dragonborn into old settings is WHY 5.5e should get a new setting designed for 5.5e.
That is besides the point.How many playable species were shoehorned into the Forgotten Realms in each edition of D&D? And how many of these species were argued over by the fans before the 4e Dragonborn were introduced to the Realms?
I'm just saying, to the subject of the OP...nothing in the rules dictates that a player option needs to be common in a given Setting.Well, to be honest, you'll get no real argument from me. I've long argued for Halflings and gnomes to be ousted from the PHB in favor of more popular options that are actually going to be used in settings.Saying that it's okay for the most popular options in the PHB to be given the same short shrift as the two least popular PHB options isn't exactly a winning argument.
They did change that: not only are not all Abeir-iriginating Dragonborn not necessarily from Tymanther, not all Dragonborn are even from Abeir. The book says there Toril native Dragonborn before the Spellplague that are still around, just they were rare and not terribly well known.Incorrect. They are all from Tymanther as far as I know. I don't have the new book, so that might have changed. Going with 5e lore only, Tymanther is where they are all from.
Oh, I liked the changes they made to SJ. They just didn't give me enough material to make it work as a campaign setting.Look at the changes to Spelljammer. It wasnt well received by well anyone.
Throw the baby out with the bathwater. Also see 4E FR.
I think WotC should have stuck to its guns with Tymanther. I cannot imagine there was a call for an Ancient Fertile Crescent inspired area of Faerun, especially one that barely bothers to file off the real world names. Between that and destroying Many Arrows just to justify the traditional orc role, Faerun squandered two great opportunities for species homelands just to literally reset them both to appease grogs.The continuing argument about fitting or shoehorning Dragonborn into old settings is WHY 5.5e should get a new setting designed for 5.5e.