D&D 5E (2014) Gnolls: Playable or Not?
- Thread starter QuietBrowser
- Start date
MonsterEnvy
Legend
I find your dislike of what has been presented as odd. First off, "Firbolg's suck on these classes" does not exist. It just states which classes are more common for Firbolgs. Stating that some are rarer because of their culture and outlook. What race was stated to have an unsustainable society. It also reminds me of your dislike of lizardfolk being a stoic race that can't facially emote.
This writing is not crap nor lazy you just don't like some of the stuff you have seen or been told about. Seriously what bugs you so much about this stuff.
GreenTengu
Adventurer
Both 3rd edition and 4th edition put way more effort into making Gnolls playable than they did for the far more popular (and less difficult to justify) Goblin race. So obviously someone at WotC has an agenda in regards to them.
That being said... I do think Gnolls are meant to be demonic, low intelligence humanoids that are more beast than man. Having them become common heroes is a bit odd in the way things are set up in D&D. I would find it far more acceptable in, say, WarCraft, where their origins have nothing to do with demons. And, obviously, it is entirely possible to have a world using the D&D system where their origin and motivations are far different. There is nothing about large, burly hyena-people that indicates that in all possible realities they must be demon-spawn. You could very well have a world where some wild magical force caused the plants and animals in an area to undergo wild mutation and Gnolls were a result of that-- or maybe they were created by a mad wizard as some sort of shock trooper and the mad wizard ultimately died leaving them aimless and rudderless, just trying to survive in any way they can,which generally means sticking together in packs and killing and eating anything or anyone they come across. You can then more justify that typical member of the species would be considered "evil" by humans and the ilk who resent being hunted and having their crops eaten and their homes taken or destroyed (even though it might be more fair to say they are "neutral" since though they commit theft and murder on a regular basis, there is no malice behind it just as humans who hunt for sport and animal predators are not considered 'evil'), but there is no reason a couple couldn't be lead from the default predator/scavenger mode with good influence.
Even with demon worshiping Gnolls, I suppose it is possible that one might find themselves exiled from their pack, disillusioned with their religion and willing to explore other ways of living. Though it is highly doubtful that any particularly civilized race would give them much of a chance. Such ones would probably end up serving Hobgoblins or Dragons or something.
And since people want a furry animal people (not even debatable given how Dragonborn were shoe-horned into every setting ever and there are hundreds of cat-people and dog-people races that people constantly try to get over), there is little doubt that certain players are going to be drawn to playing Gnolls.
Even if Gnolls are 100% Chaotic Evil (or at least within 1 alignment step of that) and below average human intelligence and civility, I don't know that one could really say that such a thing is "unplayable". It just doesn't mesh with any of the standard adventure types that make it into print.
All in all, I have to say that naturally Gnolls are something that is playable. Its just that they are probably the most difficult one to justify if you are playing in a very canon GreyHawk or Forgotten Realms. I think they would probably be fine in Eberron though.
That being said... I do think Gnolls are meant to be demonic, low intelligence humanoids that are more beast than man. Having them become common heroes is a bit odd in the way things are set up in D&D. I would find it far more acceptable in, say, WarCraft, where their origins have nothing to do with demons. And, obviously, it is entirely possible to have a world using the D&D system where their origin and motivations are far different. There is nothing about large, burly hyena-people that indicates that in all possible realities they must be demon-spawn. You could very well have a world where some wild magical force caused the plants and animals in an area to undergo wild mutation and Gnolls were a result of that-- or maybe they were created by a mad wizard as some sort of shock trooper and the mad wizard ultimately died leaving them aimless and rudderless, just trying to survive in any way they can,which generally means sticking together in packs and killing and eating anything or anyone they come across. You can then more justify that typical member of the species would be considered "evil" by humans and the ilk who resent being hunted and having their crops eaten and their homes taken or destroyed (even though it might be more fair to say they are "neutral" since though they commit theft and murder on a regular basis, there is no malice behind it just as humans who hunt for sport and animal predators are not considered 'evil'), but there is no reason a couple couldn't be lead from the default predator/scavenger mode with good influence.
Even with demon worshiping Gnolls, I suppose it is possible that one might find themselves exiled from their pack, disillusioned with their religion and willing to explore other ways of living. Though it is highly doubtful that any particularly civilized race would give them much of a chance. Such ones would probably end up serving Hobgoblins or Dragons or something.
And since people want a furry animal people (not even debatable given how Dragonborn were shoe-horned into every setting ever and there are hundreds of cat-people and dog-people races that people constantly try to get over), there is little doubt that certain players are going to be drawn to playing Gnolls.
Even if Gnolls are 100% Chaotic Evil (or at least within 1 alignment step of that) and below average human intelligence and civility, I don't know that one could really say that such a thing is "unplayable". It just doesn't mesh with any of the standard adventure types that make it into print.
All in all, I have to say that naturally Gnolls are something that is playable. Its just that they are probably the most difficult one to justify if you are playing in a very canon GreyHawk or Forgotten Realms. I think they would probably be fine in Eberron though.
I thought the drow were borne from Lolth's blood, in her fight with Corellon. Or did I just make that up for my own games?
Mecheon
Sacabambaspis
Last I heard they were the elves who chose to follow Lolth instead and went against Corellon
Honestly I'm okay with gnolls being playable. But this might be because my favoured story for Yeenoghu's origin is that he was an ordinary gnoll who somehow gained the power to gain the power of things he ate. So he naturally then ate a demon. Several demons after that. Probably ate Gorellik somewhere along the line as well
I say no, with a few exceptions. If I was doing a plane-hopping campaign focused on cosmopolitan inter-world hubs like Sigil or the City of Brass then I'd probably allow it, but for most campaigns inclusion of gnolls in the party is just too jarring given their reputation and typical behavior in the world. It becomes a Drizzt situation where every time the group goes somewhere new they have to do the same song and dance of convincing everyone that the PC in question *isn't* a remorseless killing machine.
It's also just a pet peeve of mine that every time something even vaguely sentient/humanoid is introduced, there has to be a way to play said option for characters. It becomes irritating to have people appealing to play incredibly niche snowflake races that make only tenuous sense in the setting just because the player in question is attached to some aspect of them.
All in all, I support more options being printed, but they wouldn't fly at my table and I would definitely appreciate a blurb in whatever monster section cautioning a lot of people about the likelihood of being told no.
It's also just a pet peeve of mine that every time something even vaguely sentient/humanoid is introduced, there has to be a way to play said option for characters. It becomes irritating to have people appealing to play incredibly niche snowflake races that make only tenuous sense in the setting just because the player in question is attached to some aspect of them.
All in all, I support more options being printed, but they wouldn't fly at my table and I would definitely appreciate a blurb in whatever monster section cautioning a lot of people about the likelihood of being told no.
pukunui
Legend
I haven't heard that one before. The usual story is that they were seduced away from the Seldarine by Lolth and then were punished and driven underground because of it.
There are two variables that are important for this question:
1. whether the "official" (canon) explanation of a race is something a DM chooses to stick to or not, and
2. whether a player should be able to pursue the story/character that he or she wishes, within the reasonable constraints of the DM ad his/her world.
The first is about the fictional world being created collaboratively; the second is about player freedom, fun, and the purpose of getting together with friends to play a game.
I myself do not assign any meaningful weight to the first. Some do, and that's fine -- in the case of gnolls, a DM is always free to say that "in my world" or "in canon" gnolls are always irretrievably demonic. That seems both arbitrary and inconsistent to me, but to each their own.
I do assign weight to the second: that an engaged, creative player working with an engaged, creative DM could meaningfully play a monstrous humanoid such as a hobgoblin or gnoll, and help contribute positively to an overall story. I therefore thing gnolls should be supported -- that a half page of published real estate be given over to this option, given that there are many who *like* the mechanics for playing gnolls (I'm one of them).
It's not a question of forcing something onto DMs that don't want it, and it's not the same as saying "I want to play a Demon lord/adult red dragon/intellect devourer then" since relative power levels for all the monstrous humanoids are manageable and within a very constrained range.
We've seen that the game can't handle a large-size race such as the Firbolg (making them medium to be playable). Honestly, gnoll meets a lower threshold than that. I do not understand why someone would think not only I don't want that in my game, but I also don't want others to have their interests supported.
1. whether the "official" (canon) explanation of a race is something a DM chooses to stick to or not, and
2. whether a player should be able to pursue the story/character that he or she wishes, within the reasonable constraints of the DM ad his/her world.
The first is about the fictional world being created collaboratively; the second is about player freedom, fun, and the purpose of getting together with friends to play a game.
I myself do not assign any meaningful weight to the first. Some do, and that's fine -- in the case of gnolls, a DM is always free to say that "in my world" or "in canon" gnolls are always irretrievably demonic. That seems both arbitrary and inconsistent to me, but to each their own.
I do assign weight to the second: that an engaged, creative player working with an engaged, creative DM could meaningfully play a monstrous humanoid such as a hobgoblin or gnoll, and help contribute positively to an overall story. I therefore thing gnolls should be supported -- that a half page of published real estate be given over to this option, given that there are many who *like* the mechanics for playing gnolls (I'm one of them).
It's not a question of forcing something onto DMs that don't want it, and it's not the same as saying "I want to play a Demon lord/adult red dragon/intellect devourer then" since relative power levels for all the monstrous humanoids are manageable and within a very constrained range.
We've seen that the game can't handle a large-size race such as the Firbolg (making them medium to be playable). Honestly, gnoll meets a lower threshold than that. I do not understand why someone would think not only I don't want that in my game, but I also don't want others to have their interests supported.
Imaro
Legend
I could see the argument if getting the gnoll means someone wouldn't get a race they are more interested in. Especially since I think there's quite a few races that already cater to the savage outsider archetype (this is why I'm pretty meh about whether the gnoll is being included as a playable race or not). Personally I'd be much more interested in a playable Githyanki/Githzerai race but I realize it's a personal preference and those races may not be popular enough to garner the playable write up.
Last edited:
Who really cares? I mean *really*?
Does anyone read through the Monster Manual and see all the fiction and flavor parts WotC added to monsters in their write-ups and get so bent out of shape over them that they refuse to use that monster? I'd be highly surprised if anyone actually did. Instead, you'd do what you've always done and just ignored it and made up your own fiction and flavor.
So gnolls are not getting a PC write-up in Volo's Guide. Okay, fine. Now assuming this was to be the case... does it *matter* that Mike gave out a reason why they at the company made the choice not to do a write-up? Had he just not mentioned their reasoning at all and we all just discovered when reading the book "Hey, they didn't make a gnoll PC write-up"... would that have been better? I don't see why it would have. We weren't getting a write-up in either case... but somehow having more information about why is somehow WORSE? Personally I find that to be utterly ridiculous.
ESPECIALLY when you add in the fact of all the INCESSANT WHINING that people have done on the boards over the years about how WotC "was horrible at communicating with us!" If they DIDN'T talk to us about what was going on, there was so much bitching and moaning that it became ridiculous. But now... they DO tell us something, and all of a sudden people are mad about it.
Utterly, utterly ridiculous.
If you need a gnoll PC write-up that badly, you can make one or buy one off of DMs Guild. But odds-are... you probably never would have even thought about it or cared if Mike hadn't mentioned it.
Does anyone read through the Monster Manual and see all the fiction and flavor parts WotC added to monsters in their write-ups and get so bent out of shape over them that they refuse to use that monster? I'd be highly surprised if anyone actually did. Instead, you'd do what you've always done and just ignored it and made up your own fiction and flavor.
So gnolls are not getting a PC write-up in Volo's Guide. Okay, fine. Now assuming this was to be the case... does it *matter* that Mike gave out a reason why they at the company made the choice not to do a write-up? Had he just not mentioned their reasoning at all and we all just discovered when reading the book "Hey, they didn't make a gnoll PC write-up"... would that have been better? I don't see why it would have. We weren't getting a write-up in either case... but somehow having more information about why is somehow WORSE? Personally I find that to be utterly ridiculous.
ESPECIALLY when you add in the fact of all the INCESSANT WHINING that people have done on the boards over the years about how WotC "was horrible at communicating with us!" If they DIDN'T talk to us about what was going on, there was so much bitching and moaning that it became ridiculous. But now... they DO tell us something, and all of a sudden people are mad about it.
Utterly, utterly ridiculous.
If you need a gnoll PC write-up that badly, you can make one or buy one off of DMs Guild. But odds-are... you probably never would have even thought about it or cared if Mike hadn't mentioned it.
