D&D General I finally like non-Tolkien species for PCs

@DarkCrisis Thanks for the recommendation. Looks right up my alley and the Kindle versions of the books are very affordable. Kinda put off about getting an audible subscription. But the book is free on audible with a free one-month subscription. If I really like it and go onto the other books, the subscription will be worth it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

@DarkCrisis Thanks for the recommendation. Looks right up my alley and the Kindle versions of the books are very affordable. Kinda put off about getting an audible subscription. But the book is free on audible with a free one-month subscription. If I really like it and go onto the other books, the subscription will be worth it.

I have a one credit every 2 months plan. I have a huge backlog thanks to Sales that offer cheap books, so that works for me.

Though I’ll probably be buying extra credits to keep my Wandering Inn addiction going.
 

i'd like to what would get created if the mould was broken a little more and the tolkien core four/five and their well-worn dynamics weren't inserted into every setting as default, what might you get with a setting where your baseline species are a lineup of, say, dragonborn, gnomes, kobolds, satyrs and warforged and that humans, elves, dwarves, halflings and orcs were nowhere to be seen.
I have long advocated for the DMG (and possibly the PHB too) to include, rather than the infuriating "true exotics" blather and insistence that various things are part of basically every fantasy world etc. etc., to instead explain how playable species affect the tone of a game.

So, for example, you could start with the standard "core four" Tolkien-esque options. "This is an extremely classic fantasy feel, rooted in Tolkien, and through him, Norse and Gaelic mythology, and to a lesser extent the wider body of European myth and folklore." Perhaps give commentary on how one can spice up even this well-worn example.

And then you list other examples, explaining what can arise from them. For example:

  • Humans, dragonborn, tieflings, kenku, halflings, changelings. A seemingly-strange combination--until you realize that these are or correspond to various mythical creatures from Japanese myth, such as ryu in humanoid form, oni, tanuki, and the many shape-changing youkai such as kitsune. The absence of many "traditional" options better reflects the cultural mores of ancient and medieval Japan, especially if paired with the right setting elements and optional rules such as an Honor stat.
  • Humans, genasi, loxodons, owlin (modified to have burrowing rather than flight), leonin. This one may be a bit more obvious--an Arabian Nights/Sultans of India setting, where humans with genie blood are hardly rare, and with owlin inspired by burrowing owls rather than flying ones. Loxodons and leonin provide additional options and variety while staying fairly on-theme.
  • Humans, satyrs, minotaurs, centaurs, wood elves (no others), dragonborn (rare). If the list hasn't given it away, a sword-and-sandal Ancient Greece setting. The inclusion of dragonborn might seem unusual, but they have precedent in the Spartoi (not to be confused with Spartans), the "sown ones", warriors who sprouted from sown dragons teeth in the myths of both Cadmus and Jason. Elves are restricted to wood elves to represent dryads.
  • Humans (rare), changelings, elves, fairies, firbolgs, gnomes, goblins, shifters. A consciously Celtic-leaning setting, including various races inspired by the aes sídhe of Irish myth, with Shifters a reference to the Werewolves of Ossory. Humans being rare emphasizes that this is an innately supernatural land, where humans live only on the fringes; perhaps it is Annwn, or Tir na nOg, or some other mythical otherworld, with the few humans here the only ones who have crossed over in bodily form, or something similar.

Same treatment would be applied to classes, deities, and other elements. Help show the GM (and the players) not just THAT they can shape things with these choices, but HOW they can do so.
 

Elves are restricted to wood elves to represent dryads.
i can't believe 5e still doesn't have a proper playable dryad option, plant people are, well, while not a favourite concept exactly are still very much a staple one, LotR even had the ent's for goodness sake even if those didn't get brought into the spotlight with the rest of the tolkien species.
 

I have long advocated for the DMG (and possibly the PHB too) to include, rather than the infuriating "true exotics" blather and insistence that various things are part of basically every fantasy world etc. etc., to instead explain how playable species affect the tone of a game.

So, for example, you could start with the standard "core four" Tolkien-esque options. "This is an extremely classic fantasy feel, rooted in Tolkien, and through him, Norse and Gaelic mythology, and to a lesser extent the wider body of European myth and folklore." Perhaps give commentary on how one can spice up even this well-worn example.

And then you list other examples, explaining what can arise from them. For example:

  • Humans, dragonborn, tieflings, kenku, halflings, changelings. A seemingly-strange combination--until you realize that these are or correspond to various mythical creatures from Japanese myth, such as ryu in humanoid form, oni, tanuki, and the many shape-changing youkai such as kitsune. The absence of many "traditional" options better reflects the cultural mores of ancient and medieval Japan, especially if paired with the right setting elements and optional rules such as an Honor stat.
  • Humans, genasi, loxodons, owlin (modified to have burrowing rather than flight), leonin. This one may be a bit more obvious--an Arabian Nights/Sultans of India setting, where humans with genie blood are hardly rare, and with owlin inspired by burrowing owls rather than flying ones. Loxodons and leonin provide additional options and variety while staying fairly on-theme.
  • Humans, satyrs, minotaurs, centaurs, wood elves (no others), dragonborn (rare). If the list hasn't given it away, a sword-and-sandal Ancient Greece setting. The inclusion of dragonborn might seem unusual, but they have precedent in the Spartoi (not to be confused with Spartans), the "sown ones", warriors who sprouted from sown dragons teeth in the myths of both Cadmus and Jason. Elves are restricted to wood elves to represent dryads.
  • Humans (rare), changelings, elves, fairies, firbolgs, gnomes, goblins, shifters. A consciously Celtic-leaning setting, including various races inspired by the aes sídhe of Irish myth, with Shifters a reference to the Werewolves of Ossory. Humans being rare emphasizes that this is an innately supernatural land, where humans live only on the fringes; perhaps it is Annwn, or Tir na nOg, or some other mythical otherworld, with the few humans here the only ones who have crossed over in bodily form, or something similar.

Same treatment would be applied to classes, deities, and other elements. Help show the GM (and the players) not just THAT they can shape things with these choices, but HOW they can do so.
Yes this would be so very good to see.

I'm a big fan of curated Setting Palettes and the ones you've outlined are a good fun set, though you may want to add other nymphs to your 'wood elf dryads'. Interesting call on the Spartoi, it works as good as any other and is thematically linked.

I'm not a fan of dragonborn or tieflings as presented and I think after reading this thread it isnt because theyre monsters (I like monster races, afterall I once played a PC Willowisp psion) my issues is that as presented in the core set tieflings and dragonborn are boring - they suffer the Star Trek issue of being humans with head ridges, funny noses and horns. Giving them real and meaningful cultural distinction that has their species being notable is what I would prefer. 5e has killed that in favour of well ribbon flavour not hearty depth
 

i'd like to what would get created if the mould was broken a little more and the tolkien core four/five and their well-worn dynamics weren't inserted into every setting as default, what might you get with a setting where your baseline species are a lineup of, say, dragonborn, gnomes, kobolds, satyrs and warforged and that humans, elves, dwarves, halflings and orcs were nowhere to be seen.
I doubt they'd ever get rid of humans for obvious reasons but I do think more thematic settings where every single race does not have to be included is a good idea. I feel like there are so many now that including them all makes the world feel off for me.
 

I doubt they'd ever get rid of humans for obvious reasons but I do think more thematic settings where every single race does not have to be included is a good idea. I feel like there are so many now that including them all makes the world feel off for me.
ah yeah that's fair, probably not going to take out the 'neutral default' human as an option, that reminds me though, i've considered the concept of a full... pseudo-human..? setting, not being able to immediately visually tell a character's species, you've got humans obviously, but also vampires/dhampirs, shifters, OG tieflings(the ones that are basically humans visually but with quirks like slitted eyes or shadows that move independently), changelings... this is starting to sound more like a gothic hammer horror setting but that's not really the intent behind the idea, just sort of, anti-kitchen sink setting effect but without the lack of diversity in options?
 

i can't believe 5e still doesn't have a proper playable dryad option, plant people are, well, while not a favourite concept exactly are still very much a staple one, LotR even had the ent's for goodness sake even if those didn't get brought into the spotlight with the rest of the tolkien species.
Level Up does. There's an excellent 3pp supplement available on Drivethru that covers them.
 

I used to see the argument a lot in the OSR sphere (... on Google+, so this was a while ago) about how appropriate it was to include non-Original Rules races in D&D. A lot of people feel, to play the game "correctly" (whatever that means) you need to use the originals only.

What's weird is, some of the earliest fan and official material was really, really odd races for D&D. In an early Alarums & Excursions, there was a dragon character class. In the article "My Life as a Werebear: D&D Monster Character Classes" from White Dwarf #17 (Feb/Mar 1980), Lew Pulsipher wrote up rules for one player to play a whole pack of blink dogs. Playing off-type is as traditional as absolutely anything else in D&D.
 

I used to see the argument a lot in the OSR sphere (... on Google+, so this was a while ago) about how appropriate it was to include non-Original Rules races in D&D. A lot of people feel, to play the game "correctly" (whatever that means) you need to use the originals only.

What's weird is, some of the earliest fan and official material was really, really odd races for D&D. In an early Alarums & Excursions, there was a dragon character class. In the article "My Life as a Werebear: D&D Monster Character Classes" from White Dwarf #17 (Feb/Mar 1980), Lew Pulsipher wrote up rules for one player to play a whole pack of blink dogs. Playing off-type is as traditional as absolutely anything else in D&D.
it is not like most of them even know what to do with the base options save copy them over and over
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top