D&D 5E 5th Edition and the "true exotic" races ...

[EzekielRaiden]

It establishes a baseline, which is somewhat useful for reference. If anything, it might help DMs to realize that it's okay to make these sorts of decisions, and they're expected to actively make choices about what to bring in or throw out. That's a fairly significant part of the DMG, as well.

Yeah, I completely disagree. This is not the equivalent of providing a baseline and then explicitly telling the DM, "Change what you want!"

This is up-front stating that certain things are fundamentally part of the canvas, not something you paint. And that strangles creative freedom.

They use Half-Dragons instead, which are virtually the same thing. Langdedrosa Cyanwrath was the very first mini-boss you fought in the very first adventure path of 5E. And then Rezmir is another one you fight several chapters later.

If you want to split hairs that dragonborn aren't half-dragons, fine... but I'd be hard-pressed to tell you what the differences between them are.

Half-dragons have a dragon parent, and are liable to live very long lives, if they don't get themselves killed doing something stupid. Because they have a specific type of dragon as a parent, half-dragons will always resemble that type of dragon overtly, and will always have their specific ancestor's breath and resistance types. They also have tails, and sometimes wings. I *think*--but don't know for sure--that being a half-dragon provides different, color-associated stat bonuses.

Dragonborn have dragonborn parents, and have life spans essentially equivalent to a human's (though they have a much shorter "childhood" and a much longer "adolescence" than humans). Dragonborn can be nearly any color, including several colors dragons usually aren't, like brown, rust, or ochre, and their color need not have any specific relationship to their breath type or resistance. All Dragonborn have the same stat bonuses (+2 Str, +1 Cha), and no dragonborn have tails, and I'm fairly sure none have wings, either.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The actual, best situation is that everything is optional. Elves are optional. Dwarves are optional. Even Humans are optional. NOTHING is guaranteed.

The 5e PHB notes only that dwarves, elves, halflings, and humans are more common than the other races. Nothing in the PHB indicates that these races are "opt in," merely that they are less common - and that's mostly to contextualize how other characters react to them (half-elves are exceptional, dragonborn are exotic, tieflings are dark and mysterious, etc.).

The suggestion seems to be: if you want your race to be a BIG part of your identity, choose one of these uncommon races. You'll be one dwarf among many, but you might be the only gnome around for miles.

 

[Illithidbix]

I'm personally pissed about Gnomes and Half-Orcs being Exotic races in the first place. THEY ARE EVERYWHERE!

GrumbleGrumble never gonna see exotic Elves are we? Stupid jerk Elves.

A "surprising" number of my friends have made homebrew worlds where every elf is on fire...

I quite like Tieflings and Dragonborn, but I can see the argument that they end up a bit too "monstrous" to have wandering around in many D&D worlds. This is itself somewhat debatable.
When I put them in my game I tend to make their appearance somewhat more subtle. I like to write them in as "human bloodlines" that sometimes spring into full manifestation. The fiendish/draconic traits increase as the character grows in power.
Somewhat inspired by the concept of lineage from Empire, a major UK LARP system.*

E.g. an Red Dragonborn Oath of Vengeance Paladin, whose face was burnt in a fire and red draconic scales grow in the burn scars.
Exposeure to relevant energy time = more physical manifestations (Admittedly fire is more commonly encountered likely than lightning in this case.).
Use of the breath weapon tends to lead to scaly throats and jaws that it might be wise to cover up.


*(See: http://www.profounddecisions.co.uk/empire-wiki/Lineage if you want to read more)

 

[pukunui]

They use Half-Dragons instead, which are virtually the same thing. Langdedrosa Cyanwrath was the very first mini-boss you fought in the very first adventure path of 5E. And then Rezmir is another one you fight several chapters later.

If you want to split hairs that dragonborn aren't half-dragons, fine... but I'd be hard-pressed to tell you what the differences between them are.

Good point! I remember thinking, when I first saw the half-dragon template in the MM, that they were pretty much exactly the same as dragonborn.

Branding and merchandising of course. GET YOUR HALF DRAGON MINIS RIGHT HERE! WE'LL THROW IN DRAGONBORN MINIS FOR HALF OFF!

If only! All the dragonborn minis WotC put out were rares and ended up being ridiculously overpriced on the secondary market. Like upwards of $20 each!

 

[MechaPilot]

I'm personally pissed about Gnomes and Half-Orcs being Exotic races in the first place. THEY ARE EVERYWHERE!

GrumbleGrumble never gonna see exotic Elves are we? Stupid jerk Elves.

Two of my homebrew worlds still have elves (though they are immortal and more like faeries than elves), but I entirely know what you mean. I've seen too much lazy design revolving around this concept: (Insert Terrain Name Here) Elf. I'd much rather be given a merfolk race than aquatic elves.

Of course, we also see a lot of anti-"ugly" prejudice in campaign settings too. It's generally the "pretty" races who are good and the "ugly" ones who are evil (and before anyone out there tries to throw the Drow at me, they are the exception that proves the rule).

 

[Zardnaar]

They are basically focusing on what made the game D&D in the 1st place. A vaguely Tolkenesque fantasy world which means humans, elves, dwarves and hobbits erm halflings. Early D&D did not have the other races which did into turn up until AD&D and 4E later on.

The monstrous races can also be a problem (Dragonborn, Drow, Tieflings). In a lot of setting having Drow wander around the surface world kind of defeats the purpose of Drow in the first place and they should be attacked/killed on sight. Drizzt got away with it because he was level 15 or so when he reached the surface.

IN a few of my campaigns a 1st level Drow would be murdered on sight, imprisoned or arbitrarily executed by the authorities. At best Drow might be so rare no one would know what they are. I tend to not use Lolth to much but Drow are still usually demon worshippers.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The 5e PHB notes only that dwarves, elves, halflings, and humans are more common than the other races. Nothing in the PHB indicates that these races are "opt in," merely that they are less common - and that's mostly to contextualize how other characters react to them (half-elves are exceptional, dragonborn are exotic, tieflings are dark and mysterious, etc.).

The suggestion seems to be: if you want your race to be a BIG part of your identity, choose one of these uncommon races. You'll be one dwarf among many, but you might be the only gnome around for miles.

That's certainly not the sense I get out of it.

"Humans are the most common people in the worlds of D&D, but they live and work alongside dwarves, elves, halflings, and countless other fantastic species." Failing to name the other races, despite them actually being present and mentioned in literally the paragraph beforehand (where they are called "true exotics"--a term I'm not especially fond of), strongly implies that these four races are as universal as humans are--that there shouldn't be a world that doesn't have them.

Then we get this gem: "Dwarves, elves, halflings, and humans are the most common races to produce the sort of adventurers who make up typical parties. Dragonborn, gnomes, half-elves, half-orcs, and tieflings are less common as adventurers. Drow, a subrace of elves, are also uncommon." Given the way Drow are presented, this strongly implies that the "exotic" races are as uncommon as Drow.

In each of the four "common" race entries, we get specific interaction information...exclusively for the other three "common" races. They're intentionally portrayed as always being together as a unit. And then, on the second page of the Dragonborn entry, instead of getting a blurb about Dragonborn culture or their relations with other species, we get this (emphasis/footnotes mine):

"UNCOMMON RACES
The dragonborn and the rest of the races in this chapter are uncommon. They don't exist in every world of D&D,(1) and even where they are found, they are less widespread than dwarves, elves, halflings, and humans.(2)
In the cosmopolitan cities of the D&D multiverse, most people hardly look twice at members of even the most exotic races. But the small towns and villages that dot the countryside are different. The common folk (3) aren't accustomed to seeing members of these races, and they react accordingly.(4)"

1: And now we get the statement. "Uncommon" or "true exotic" races don't exist in every world of D&D, but the "common" races do. Otherwise, why mention that ONLY the exotic races don't exist in every world of D&D?
2: There is never D&D a world where dragonborn, or gnomes, or whatever else are more widespread than any of the common races. Ever. No exceptions (despite the numerous exceptions.)
3: "The common folk" = "members of the common races." So now all those random villages are always populated by dwarves, elves, halflings, or hobbits.
4: "If you play an exotic race, it's okay for the DM to play everyone as racist and terrified of you, even if you never do anything wrong." The following blurbs be damned--because I've literally seen people saying exactly that on this very forum. I can get quotes, if you like.

 

[MechaPilot]

They are basically focusing on what made the game D&D in the 1st place. A vaguely Tolkenesque fantasy world which means humans, elves, dwarves and hobbits erm halflings. Early D&D did not have the other races whcich did nto turn up until AD&D and 4E later on.

The monstrous races can also be a problem (Dragonborn, Drow, Tieflings).

The monstrous races can also be great fun, which is (unless I'm mistaken) the actual heart of the game of D&D.

I'm just saying, not everyone identifies the same things as the heart and soul of D&D. Tolkien fantasy doesn't define my concept of D&D at all, though it's certainly one possible subsets.

 

[NotActuallyTim]

It's definitely a bone thrown to a bunch of grognards who would complain about it the net otherwise. I mean, there's no reason why humans would exist on any particular world. It's just that some percentage of the playing population wants them to exist, so that they can play human characters. Same goes for Elves, Dwarves and Halfings.

But not Kender. Definitely not Kender.

 

[Zardnaar]

The monstrous races can also be great fun, which is (unless I'm mistaken) the actual heart of the game of D&D.

I'm just saying, not everyone identifies the same things as the heart and soul of D&D. Tolkien fantasy doesn't define my concept of D&D at all, though it's certainly one possible subsets.

You are only one person. The lotR movies for example were mega blockbusters and the reason for that. Most people associate fantasy with Tolkein and similar work, magitech, dark fantasy and the other sub genres not so much. Its purely about the mass appeal.

Can you personally make a better hamburger than McDonalds? Yes but its about the mass market. Sure a marinated chicken breast, with camembert cheese, bacon and a nice sauce might be a great burger but its not going to outsell a Big Mac. Same reason why the latest Star Wars movies is about X-Wings, lightsabers and a super weapon instead of a trade dispute.