D&D 5E Companion thread to 5E Survivor: Species

[Tonguez]

E.g., people complained about Dragonborn getting six entries...but that's the same number both Human and Halfling got, only slightly more than what Gnome or Dwarf got, and less than what Elf or Tiefling got. Yet the only one of those that got any complaints was Tiefling, and that only because it got the most entries at 10.

I agree. I wish that framework had been included in the original Player's Handbook. It can be a lot of fun for certain players who enjoy that kind of creative freedom... and, IMO, would have cut down on a lot of bloat.

if each of the races had been limited to say four entries each it would have been much more even and would allow the flavor to be showcased without getting the bloat from which the game currently suffers. One of the biggest criticisms of 3e was feat bloat, but in reality the proliferation of subraces is exactly the same thing in disguise. The number of elf subraces has been a joke for a long time, but its only with newer editions that the same mistake in race design has started to spread - 10 tieflings is ridiculous when the differences are superficial (a choice of free cantrip), dragonborn are largely the same except for a single feat, only gem dragons being telepaths need a seperate entry. Humans might have had the same number of types as Dragonborn, but humans disappeared early so I’m not sure theres much comparison possible (plus I dont think Dragonmarks count anyway). Notably there were 4 kinds of dwarfs, gnomes, genasi and shifters, kinds that lasted for quite some time

The beauty of custom lineage (and variant human before it) is that it recognises that players are creative, 10 canonised teiflings restricts creativity, instead of allowing me to craft my own individual vision of the archetypes.

of course I use to play GURPS and most recently have been playing FATE, so Im probably primed for such toolkit systems.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Humans might have had the same number of types as Dragonborn, but humans disappeared early so I’m not sure theres much comparison possible (plus I dont think Dragonmarks count anyway). Notably there were 4 kinds of dwarfs, gnomes, genasi and shifters, kinds that lasted for quite some time

There were actually five types of gnome (autognome also counts!), and six types of halfling. Seven types of elf. All three of them lasted longer than dragonborn, and no one complained about them having excessive entries. People did complain about tiefling...and dragonborn.

If you're annoyed by the dragonborn existing when they're only different by a single feat, the dragonmarks should be even moreso a problem because (at least considering previous editions) they are only different by a feat.

 

[Tonguez]

There were actually five types of gnome (autognome also counts!), and six types of halfling. Seven types of elf. All three of them lasted longer than dragonborn, and no one complained about them having excessive entries. People did complain about tiefling...and dragonborn.

If you're annoyed by the dragonborn existing when they're only different by a single feat, the dragonmarks should be even moreso a problem because (at least considering previous editions) they are only different by a feat.

Yeah dragonmarks are very annoying and if it had of been me moderating I would have left the dragonmarks out since they’re just magic tattoos. Unfortunately the current design paradigm seems to be to conflate feats into subrace markers.
Gotta admit I overlooked autognome (its a warforged Construct!) and
I think people have just gotten over complaining about elfs, theyre so entrenched that its so much lost air, but there may still a chance to rally against the new elfs with their fiendish horns and mix and match thaumaturgy

 

[AnotherGuy]

I don't remember us having two whole threads about how much people hate dragonborn without saying they hate them on here.

People's dislike of things is paper thin sometimes, including mine.
I took an instant dislike to dragonborn when 4e came out, but I'm ok with tieflings., maybe because I'm always imagining the latter as female. And this is likely to the artwork and my first impressions of 4e.
However, if Saurial (admittedly closer to Lizardfolk) was included on the list I would have been more than happy to back it, purely because my first exposure to a saurial was from fond memories of the Azure Bonds trilogy.
Ah Dragonbait!