And the mystery race is...hated

[Derren]

And a race that's generally unacceptable as a PC. Which means that it shouldn't be in any PHB.

Any non-human race would be unacceptable as PC in Hyboria...

 

[Arnwyn]

Yakmen are called... wait for it... "yakfolk".

In the MMII.

IIRC, their original 'racial' name is called "Yikaria" in their original 2e source material (Al-Qadim).


WotC was pretty much screwed no matter what race they came up with (well, maybe except the gnome). The whole "mystery race" bit of nonsense didn't help them, either. To me, I think the dragonborn is probably the lesser of many, many evils, so they probably came out of all this better than they could have otherwise.

Not that I would ever use them.

 

[Mortellan]

My biggest problem with it is one of convenience. This is the first time in the history of D&D that I don't feel comfortable with turning absolutely everything in the PHB loose with the players, and that I couldn't find everything in the PHB usable in almost any D&D campaign I'd choose to run. The PHB will be sufficiently "non-vanilla" that I feel like I'll have to have a list saying, "you can't use this, this, and this in my new campaign" instead of saying, "you can use the PHB, and these parts of the following supplement books."

I agree wholeheartedly with Henry's reply. And it may be the reasons in this post that I won't end up using 4th edition. They could've erred on the side of caution by introducing a race with a common campaign denominator like orcs or drow and suffered derision for all of a week maybe, but this is a huge risk which I believe will dog them into the next edition and its a risk that I feel they already took anyways by nominating tieflings.

 

[Sunderstone]

I could see the PH with new core starting races like Orcs, Goblinoids, and Kobolds. Playing D&D from the "other side" so to speak. I could probably even get into that. Id like to see some decent and varied racial abilities on par with the standard PH races without being over the top. Some future accessories and supplements, maybe a humanoid city sourcebook. Sounds somewhat warcrafty, but the D&D lately has already drawn alot from it anyway.

Dragonborn and Tieflings shouldnt be that commonplace though. Id rather keep dragonborn "exotic" and Tieflings to a bare minimum.
I cant see Tieflings all that common unless WotC is aiming for a world overrun by lower planar creatures siring offspring left and right. Just doesnt make sense to have Tieflings as a core race.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Elves are immediately recognizable to even casual fans of fantasy. They have existed in dozens of different books, movies, and video games. By comparison, dragonborn are not nearly as recognizable. If you describe the game to a new player, it's pretty likely that he can get a general idea of what an elf is just from the name. Dragonborn, though, will require more explanation.

Well, in anime and videogames, dragonmen are actually pretty common... Almost as common as elves, maybe (though probably not as common as the broader idea of "people with pointed ears").

Besides, as other have said, all you need to say is "A humanoid dragon person", and the concept is nearly explained in full. The two important concepts, dragons and anthropomorphic creatures, are both incredibly common ideas. They are far more universally known than any particular variation of elves (which range from LotR to being another name for small glowing fairies), and are certainly more recognizable than the idea of a D&D-style Dwarf (which has fallen significantly in visibility in the last decade) or a D&D-style Halfling (which doesn't exist outside of D&D at all).

As a whole, Dragonborn are one of the most easily identified of the 4E Core races, far more than Eladrin (which really needs explanation) and Tieflings (an unintuitive name). Dragonmen are certainly more widespread than Drow. I would say that a Humanoid Dragon-man is about on par with Elves and Orcs, and just below humans, as a recognizable creature.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Ok, it just feels to me like every decision WOTC is making is being shoved down our throats. D&D has always flourished because of it's general vague setting.

Rubbish. Tolkienesque races like elves, dwarves, orcs, and halflings are just as specific as dragonborn, tieflings, and thri-kreen - and to a person like me who is not and has never been a fan of Tolkien, they're just as annoying and intrusive as more "bizarre" races like the latter group seem to a fan of "traditional" fantasy.

You're mistaking your preference for the baseline. Try to be aware of that sort of thing.

 

[JohnSnow]

See, when I hear what races people like, and which ones they don't, what I hear the traditionalist camp saying, even the Tolkien haters, is that Tolkien-inspired races are fine, but anything else is not. Let's review, shall we?

Humans - Fine.
Elves - Fine.
Dwarves - Fine.
Halflings - Fine.
Half-elves - Fine.
Half-orcs - Fine.
Gnomes - Fine.
Goblinoids - Fine.
Tieflings - Not Fine.
Dragonborn - Not Fine.

Let's examine this, shall we? The first 6 races are all basically in The Lord of the Rings. Gnomes are sort of a mishmash of three others (halfling-size, dwarven look, and elven magic and nature sense). And goblinoids are basically there as well.

So, even races that are traditional "monsters" seem fine with people as long as they fit the Tolkien "model" of "goodly races." In the post-modern "monsters are people too" approach, orcs are mammalian and vaguely human looking, so people figure they can make a playable race.

People bring up Dragonlance as an example of an "iconic D&D setting" all the time. In that vein, I have to ask, am I the only one who remembers Draconians? If minotaurs would be fine as a PC race, why the hate for another DL race?

Michael Stackpole's Dragoncrown War has humans, elves, a shapeshifting short race that's like a bizarre take on dwarves, a race that's vaguely reminiscent of raptorans, and humanoid dragons. And it still feels like high fantasy, even though its only real "Tolkien-ish" races are humans and elves.

It's just amusing that for all the Tolkien hate, his take on "goodly races" still holds such weight with so many gamers - even ones who will claim he's not their influence.

 

[Odhanan]

For me:

Humans - Fine.
Elves - Fine.
Dwarves - Fine.
Halflings - Fine.
Half-elves - Not Fine.
Half-orcs - Not Fine.
Gnomes - Fine.
Goblinoids - Fine.
Tieflings - Not Fine.
Dragonborn - Not Fine.

One single type of elf, no half-breeds, no "pokemon" races in the core books. You can keep them for supplements.

 

[broghammerj]

People bring up Dragonlance as an example of an "iconic D&D setting" all the time. In that vein, I have to ask, am I the only one who remembers Draconians? If minotaurs would be fine as a PC race, why the hate for another DL race?

I have no hate for Draconians. They have a viable and historical reason for being in that SETTING. They have no reason for being in FR, GH, Dark Sun, Ravenloft and what I call generic DnD that has been in existence for 20-30 yrs.

As for all the Tolkien hate, I am a bit confused. Without Tolkien, I wouldn't be playing. I never read any sword and sorcery books, not that there is anything wrong with them. Old school DnD seems to be have a significant Tolkien influence. If you have been playing DnD for a long time how can you hate it? My only thought is you're tired of it or you came on board with DnD in later editions when the Tolkien influence was a bit diluted.

 

[Vigilance]

And a race that's generally unacceptable as a PC. Which means that it shouldn't be in any PHB.

And you could make exactly the same case for half-orc being in the PHB under 3e.

And of course, serpent-folk/dragonfolk are a better fit than gnomes and halflings for any world leaning more toward Nehwon or Sanctuary or Hyboria than Middle Earth.