D&D 5E (2014) 5e Tieflings and Dragonborn
- Thread starter shadow
- Start date
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Part of me wonders if it's not going to be...
Human
-- Human
-- Half-Elf
-- Half-Orc
...or something similar.
Human subraces get you into sticky biology v. culture debates and invite some nasty cultural biases. "Oh, you're a tribal person, that must mean you aren't smart or you aren't charismatic!" when, say, in the real world, a Hadza chief would probably be able to out-think and out-charm any one of us in most spheres of their life.
At least the half-elf or half-orc distinction is clearly biological, so you can not worry as much about inviting those kinds of biases.
Human
-- Human
-- Half-Elf
-- Half-Orc
...or something similar.
Human subraces get you into sticky biology v. culture debates and invite some nasty cultural biases. "Oh, you're a tribal person, that must mean you aren't smart or you aren't charismatic!" when, say, in the real world, a Hadza chief would probably be able to out-think and out-charm any one of us in most spheres of their life.
At least the half-elf or half-orc distinction is clearly biological, so you can not worry as much about inviting those kinds of biases.
Holy Bovine
First Post
Why would cultural biases in a fantasy game be such a problem? Most of the games I've run or played in have had some kind of cultural bias as a potential source of conflict. I just don't understand why it would be considered a 'sticky' subject where as bias based on physical differences is just fine.
Anyways I am very happy to see the list of races presented and to know that each race has *at least* 2 sub-races is going to make for a big variety of racial types right out of the starting gate. C'Mon August!
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
It's iffy to hard-code them into character creation in a similar way to how it's iffy to hard-code possible gender differences into character creation. It's one thing to have differences and biases in your game, especially among fantastic creatures that never existed, it's quite another to say, "Oh, humans in this fantasy world are basically like humans here in the real world, and if you're not from a city, you CANNOT be as intelligent as someone who is," because that isn't how human beings or intelligence actually works. There's quite a bit of literature and conversation if you want to dig into it, especially in the land of video games, since it interfaces with things like avatar creation, self-identity, and the influence of Japanese culture on game development coupled with the fact that the Japanese experience of race is a lot different from the American one, but even if you don't dig in, it is enough to note that it flirts with elements of racism, classism, and cultural egocentrism.
There are probably ways to work around it and be OK, so it's not an absolute, but it invites trouble and it's easy to get it wrong. Typically, it's just easier -- cleaner -- to say "my fantasy humans are all like X."
Half-elves and half-orcs, being fantastic creatures that never existed, don't invite those same problems, or at least do so in a less blatantly problematic way (arguably, the very concept of fantasy race is problematic from the get-go, but that's a rabbit-hole I don't expect D&D to dive down any time soon). It's easier to say "all half-orcs are less intelligent than other humans," because, sure, half-orcs are imaginary beings in the first place, so if you say so, they might as well be.
The PHB is just gonna explode variety all over the place. I'm glad it's all optional, modular stuff, too!
Last edited:
Sadrik
Explorer
Enworld ate my response yesterday before work and there was no time to recreate it. Attempt 2.
Ok agreed, I mean this is a weird PC race. I think it could better be like this then? I think Kobold's make interesting character races. Many of the monster races can make interesting pcs as the reformed monster. We kind of get that with teiflings, and half-orcs and that story can only go so far.
Dragonborn
Clearly you now know which side I fall on.
An interesting thing that I think I will likely use in one of my campaigns and actually have used in the past is.
Human
All speak common, all are human first but exhibit minor traits from their distant fore-fathers. Perhaps a whole kingdom and all of it's people are humans of one particular ilk. They all look human with minor features perhaps odd hair color, eye color, or complexion.
Well these are the least played races from my experience. put them under one banner and you save space. You can still make each one as unique as separate but you save space. You can even add in the kender as a subrace too.
Halfling
Sorry it did not work for you, many others sent messages saying they liked it privately. YMMV.
Ok agreed, I mean this is a weird PC race. I think it could better be like this then? I think Kobold's make interesting character races. Many of the monster races can make interesting pcs as the reformed monster. We kind of get that with teiflings, and half-orcs and that story can only go so far.
Dragonborn
- Lizardfolk
- Kobold
- Half-dragon
Clearly you now know which side I fall on.
An interesting thing that I think I will likely use in one of my campaigns and actually have used in the past is.
Human
- Standard
- Elf blooded (half-elf)
- Orc blooded (half-orc)
- Fiend blooded (teifling)
- Dragon blooded (dragonborn)
All speak common, all are human first but exhibit minor traits from their distant fore-fathers. Perhaps a whole kingdom and all of it's people are humans of one particular ilk. They all look human with minor features perhaps odd hair color, eye color, or complexion.
Well these are the least played races from my experience. put them under one banner and you save space. You can still make each one as unique as separate but you save space. You can even add in the kender as a subrace too.
Halfling
- Hobbit
- Gnome
- Kender
Sorry it did not work for you, many others sent messages saying they liked it privately. YMMV.
I'll be curious to see if the two Human sub-races basically come down to a Physical "+1 to all six stats" sub-race and a Learned "+1 to two stats and a feat" sub-race. That way you can have both methods for the Human bonuses in the game, and it easily allows the DM can decide to eliminate one of the sub-races from his campaign if he doesn't like one of the human bonus methods.
Tovec
Explorer
As I asked Sadrik, why list it this way at all? What is the benefit? With wild elves and high elves and drow at least they are all elves. But with humans and half-humans, what is the end goal?
Besides I see it working out more like:
Human
Elf, wild
Elf, high
Dwarf, hill
Dwarf, mountain
Halfling, tallfellow*
Halfling, longfoot*
Gnome, wood*
Gnome, mountain*
Half-orc
Half-elf
Tiefling
Aasimar**
Dragonborn
(and there are certainly others I would add)
*Whatever the variant is called.
**I think it needs to be included if Tiefling is.
I also think kobolds are more intersting. I've had a few Kobold PCs or major (usually friendly) NPCs. I have no objection to them being the PHB, I doubt they will be but that's another matter. No, my objection is why you are classifying them under Lizard Folk when they are dragonic. It is like classifying Dragons under dinosaurs. While there is a time they may have had some kind of familial ties I think those days are far enough behind them that I wouldn't put them under the dinosaur/lizard folk banner anymore.
You once again forgot to put your titular race into your actual category. I only mention this really because you put human into your human category but forgot with dragonborn/lizardfolk. Also, once again, lizardfolk =/= dragonborn. They aren't a type or variation on them. Troglodytes are conceivably a type of lizard folk. Even putting dragonborn into the lizard folk section makes more sense than the reverse.
And I already gave you my thoughts on half-dragons. Regardless of parentage, I see it as a template and so I don't think it belongs in the same areas as true races anymore than vampire or werewolf do. Dhampir (I hope I'm spelling that right) and Shifters on the other hand are races and could. Do you see the distinction?
Well not really.
But even so, if you gave an opinion on which should be in that isn't the same as giving an argument of which should be in.
Anecdotal. Even if it weren't it doesn't accurately describe the way the races are in D&D. Simply put, I can see the logic and elegance in what you did in your own game, but I can also see why it simply doesn't describe or fit into something like the PHB that WotC will release.
Once again, anecdotal. I'm not trying to convince you with reasons relating to my personal game experience. I'm trying to give actual REASONS why something should or should not be a certain way. With creatures that ARE the same race then yes I think you will save space. Like having all elves be elves and all humans be humans. Even with the kender and halfling you are saving space. But you make things confusing and are out right disingenuous when you lump a race that has nothing to do with the others into a category that it doesn't belong. If you are taking "halfling" to include all short people, why not throw in dwarves and kobolds too? They're about as much alike as gnomes are.
No, the reason that something like this is anecdotal is that just because you haven't seen much play with those races and can't see the differences they must not be there. If anyone else does, me for example, then your anecdote is invalid. I've long had differences in both races and found meaningful places for both. I've changed some of the details in my game in order to do this, to further divide them, but as written they are biologically different, mentally different, even have different origins entirely. Gnomes aren't just another race of halfling. Tallfellow and longfoot or whatever the names of the three races of halfling are in Tolkien's books - THOSE are variations on the same creature. Same with elves, dwarves and humans. At no point did Tolkien call halflings a race of humans, or so on. Even the orks got their own race distinction after being mutated. Even kender are acknowledged to be a variation of halfling (right?), same with the cannibalistic ones from dark sun. But whenever a (more recent) D&D setting or book has both halflings and gnomes they are listed in different sections.
Last edited:
Ruin Explorer
Legend
This is never going to happen for the very simple reason that pretty much none of the people who are obsessed with needing the Aasimar for symmetry's sake (even though they would be vastly more rare because higher-planar creatures are not into lust or stupid sexual liasons or running away after knocking someone up or the like, so it doesn't even make sense from an "equally common perspective"), don't actually play the bloody beggars, and nor does anyone else, as far as anyone can tell!
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Tovec said:
To a certain degree, this is all academic. If what dictates your racial mechanics is your subrace, then what race it falls under doesn't really matter. We could have
Elf, Farm (human)
Elf, Drow
Elf, Eladrin
Elf, Moon
Elf, Sun
Elf, Mining (dwarf)
Elf, Gnome (gnome)
Elf, Half-Farm
Elf, Axe (orc)
Elf, Half-Axe
Elf, Dragon (dragonborn)
Elf, Infernal (tiefling)
...or whatever. If all that ultimately matters is the subrace, mechanically, then mechanically, it doesn't matter at all what broader race it falls under.
Narratively, it matters a little more, because the story of the people of FR is the story of distinct groups. These groups aren't biological as much as cultural in most instances -- the difference between gold dwarves and shield dwarves is like the difference between, I dunno, the Swede and the Bolivian. Very different people, but all still very much people. But the difference between a gold dwarf and a sun elf is greater -- more fundamental. This fundamental difference is also between the elf and the orc, or the elf and the human, or the human and the orc.
The purpose in making the half-humans subsets of the human is then a narrative purpose. Namely, the idea is that humans are adaptable, exceptional, and special. So some of them might mate with elves or orcs (or ogres or even dwarves, in Dark Sun!). They blur that more fundamental distinction, and humans are all about breaking boundaries and fitting into everything. They are capable of the highest levels of skill in any area, and few stereotypes about them remain true for every member of their group. What the half-races have in common is their humanity, their exceptional nature.
I mean, I dunno what they're gonna actually do, but I could see that making some sense. If humans have sub-races, it makes a lot of sense to make those sub-races the half-humans.
They could also try "cultural" human subraces, but that gets...potentially sticky.
They could also just not do human subraces, or make half-elves and half-orcs distinct independent races, or...whatever.
Mechanically, it probably ultimately doesn't matter where these things fall, so the purpose is entirely narrative, and narrative is very fluid between tables.
Shemeska
Hero
Wow, you seem to really not like aasimar
Ok then.Sample bias obviously, but I've seen roughly an equivalent number of aasimar and tiefling characters played in Pathfinder Society.
And I'm not sure that "symmetry" has much of anything to do with including both tieflings and aasimars, rather it's the fact that both of them were PC races for a long period of time. People enjoyed them, and they'd like to be able to play them again, and have the game support their preferences. "It's cool to play" rather than "it's symmetrical".
And one other thing is that you've repeatedly, repeatedly said that 3.x radically changed tieflings and aasimars by some minor stat changes and making the former likely to be evil. Are you just going by their entry as "monsters" in the 3.0 MM, because IIRC they weren't written up there as PC races. That came later, and while I don't have the books with me, the entry for them both in places like the FRCS and later books doesn't make any alignment restrictions.
Similar Threads
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
June 16 2026 -
June 16 2026 -
September 16 2026 
Arcana Unleashed(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.
Replies (181) -
September 16 2026 -
October 1 2026 -
October 6 2026 -
January 1 2027
