Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
5e Tieflings and Dragonborn
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6310503" data-attributes="member: 95493"><p>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?</p><p></p><p>Besides I see it working out more like:</p><p></p><p>Human</p><p>Elf, wild</p><p>Elf, high</p><p>Dwarf, hill</p><p>Dwarf, mountain</p><p>Halfling, tallfellow*</p><p>Halfling, longfoot*</p><p>Gnome, wood*</p><p>Gnome, mountain*</p><p>Half-orc</p><p>Half-elf</p><p>Tiefling</p><p>Aasimar**</p><p>Dragonborn</p><p>(and there are certainly others I would add)</p><p></p><p>*Whatever the variant is called.</p><p>**I think it needs to be included if Tiefling is.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p></p><p>Well not really.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tovec, post: 6310503, member: 95493"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
5e Tieflings and Dragonborn
Top