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


log in or register to remove this ad

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!?
I play dwarves all the time, but then I don't care what's "popular".
 

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”.
To be fair, this whole post really seems like a diss on those who like dwarves.
 

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”.
Dwarves are kind of like old Uncle Fred; sure, you only talk to him for a few minutes during the holidays once a year, but you're used to him being around, and you'd be sad if the old guy died.

Dwarves are also a mainstay in my own games, as they're the race with the strongest tendency towards wizardly magic and artificing/magitech.
 

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).
lizard folk do not really do anything is more the problem. Optimal lizard folk life means nothing in the area is going to change for thousands of years.
necessary no but some could be more useful than others.
 

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.

As in my setting Artra dragons are more dinosaur like, I combined the lizardfolk and dragonborn.
 

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.
One of my players absolutely loves dwarves. I’ve intentionally given them a prominent, unique role in my setting because of this.

In my experience, although dwarves don’t have the biggest fanbase, they have one of the most dedicated ones.
 




Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top