D&D General I finally like non-Tolkien species for PCs

[Paul Farquhar]

thus considered default without DM approval

I don’t consider “it’s in the PHB” as meaning something is automatically available. Of course it’s something to discuss with the players, and I will generally work with them to let them play what they want, but the PHB has no special status.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I would define it as not a mammalian humanoid. So Thi-Kreen, Centaurs, Dragonborn, plasmoids, warforged, lizard folk, etc

I associate "long lifespan" with elves. They definitely aint ethereal, and as for supporters, that depends on the age and culture of your players,

Pillar of what exactly?

ASIs are no longer part of the game. They are mostly for people who see dragon in the title and so want to play one. But they also fill the "not a mammalian humanoid" slot and are a little cooler than lizardfolk. But like elves and dwarves I wouldn’t consider them a “must have”.

grace is more an elven thing and looking all light boned and sort of ethereal, like an asian boy band or deer in foggy woods, also ties into the magic they have going on.

pillars of fantasy races as no one seems to be interested in making many of their own any more, which is depressing.
but also ties into their long and consistent nature.

true asi are no longer part of the game but are a solid construction for a species list and also some editions still have it.
they are not a must have, but are one of the most viable newcomers. They just need a decent base setting with lore, and they are ready to roll.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

grace is more an elven thing and looking all light boned and sort of ethereal, like an asian boy band or deer in foggy woods, also ties into the magic they have going on.

Never seen that as a thing for D&D elves. Superior and arrogant is more on brand.

pillars of fantasy races as no one seems to be interested in making many of their own any more, which is depressing.

Dwarves have never been all that popular, and I don't see what's depressing about it. Who would choose to be short and angry if they had a choice!?

 

[CreamCloud0]

Dwarves have never been all that popular, and I don't see what's depressing about it. Who would choose to be short and angry if they had a choice!?

i think dwarves are popular, but in that subtle and unobtrusive way where they're just a staple of the background, so nobody really appears to give much of a fig about them until you try to take them away and people object because it would feel like they're missing.

 

[Emerikol]

I don’t consider “it’s in the PHB” as meaning something is automatically available. Of course it’s something to discuss with the players, and I will generally work with them to let them play what they want, but the PHB has no special status.

For my groups, if it was in the PHB and I didn't want it I definitely had to tell them I was not allowing it. The rest of the books were assumed to be not allowed unless they contact me and I approved. And I did approve things on occasion but that was the way our groups worked.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Never seen that as a thing for D&D elves. Superior and arrogant is more on brand.

Dwarves have never been all that popular, and I don't see what's depressing about it. Who would choose to be short and angry if they had a choice!?

arrogant and superrior is a personality type and not the one the player should likely be using if only to not get left to die.
I was describing look and vibe of the whole of elven kind.

it is a sad thing for anything to slowly fall behind and languish, or at least I see it that way(save obviously things filled purely by cruelty and hate.)

 

[Paul Farquhar]

i think dwarves are popular, but in that subtle and unobtrusive way where they're just a staple of the background, so nobody really appears to give much of a fig about them until you try to take them away and people object because it would feel like they're missing.

I’ve seen the occasional PC dwarf over my 43 years of playing, mostly because it’s me playing them, but I don’t think anyone would really miss them if they weren’t there. Only the people who always come out and say “how dare you change ANYTHING!!!” would object to their absence.

I’m pretty sure that if Gygax had not been persuaded to include them by the popularity of LotR in the 1970s, no one would be saying “what this game really needs is a species of short angry miners with long beards and Scottish accents”.

 

[TwoSix]

For my D&D-like games, I generally let the players make their characters, and if they’re something slightly off-kilter, I ask them if they think their race would be relatively common or rare in the world.

Some players want their character to be somewhat unique and stand out, others want their character to be more tied into the setting.

Like, I had a character who wanted to play a orc-leonin hybrid. Not a combination I had thought of before, but no big deal. So I changed some setting backstory such that tribes of leonin were a major player in the area of the orcish empire.

 

[Emerikol]

Never seen that as a thing for D&D elves. Superior and arrogant is more on brand.

Dwarves have never been all that popular, and I don't see what's depressing about it. Who would choose to be short and angry if they had a choice!?

Dwarves are probably the only race besides human that have appeared in every campaign I've ran. They are incredibly popular in my circles. I think his idea for elves and your idea for elves overlaps.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I would define it as not a mammalian humanoid. So Thi-Kreen, Centaurs, Dragonborn, plasmoids, warforged, lizard folk, etc

I associate "long lifespan" with elves. They definitely aint ethereal, and as for supporters, that depends on the age and culture of your players,

Pillar of what exactly?

ASIs are no longer part of the game. They are mostly for people who see dragon in the title and so want to play one. But they also fill the "not a mammalian humanoid" slot and are a little cooler than lizardfolk. But like elves and dwarves I wouldn’t consider them a “must have”.

I've always preferred lizardfolk to dragonborn personally, but it's a relatively mild preference and I generally have no objection to dragonborn as an option. I guess dragonborn as a concept read to me as more the opportunity to play a PC that looks like a dragon (an explicit reason to play one according to 4e) than anything deeper, whereas lizardfolk to me have that "lizard mannerisms but human intelligence" thing going for them.

Honestly, I don't think any particular heritage is necessary for play in general, except human (unless the setting concept specifically excludes them, I really like a human touchstone in the mix to provide contrast).