D&D (2024) No Dwarf, Halfling, and Orc suborgins, lineages, and legacies

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't mind species with elemental association, but please can we just have one? It used to be the genasi, but now the goliaths are elementally associated as well. So I don't want to add elemental dwarves to the mix too.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I mean, I won’t be using “but it’s in the lore” as an argument, which I suppose is the same thing as holding that same position, so…yes.

The only time I have referenced old canon in an argument about what belongs in D&D is with stuff like the Gnoll, where people are specifically claiming that non-evil Gnolls are a bad 4e-ism, which is factually incorrect.

The much stronger argument for Gnolls is that nothing else in the game does what they do, except Minotaurs, and having both creates a nice contrast.

i wasn't referencing the lore aspect, i was referencing the 'this doesn't deserve distinct mechanical representations' aspect

 

[Remathilis]

I don't mind species with elemental association, but please can we just have one? It used to be the genasi, but now the goliaths are elementally associated as well. So I don't want to add elemental dwarves to the mix too.

I don't see competition between them. Goliaths PC giants and genasi are PC genies. Yes, there is some elemental overlap but the same can be said of dragonborn and tieflings. Blame how many different D&D monsters use fire for that.

 

[Yaarel]

Amethyst Dragonborn, Fizban's Treasury of Dragons.

Yeah, the UA3 Dragonborn omits mention of Gem dragons, but they are easy to include via breath type and appearance.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I don't mind species with elemental association, but please can we just have one? It used to be the genasi, but now the goliaths are elementally associated as well. So I don't want to add elemental dwarves to the mix too.

i can see your point but i don't think there needs to Only Ever Be One elemental species, does that mean there can only be one strong species? only one stealthy species? ect, ect..., genasi are the high magic elemental associated species and goliaths are the lower magic one, plus i feel it's not quite the same when it's a one-off variant in a species, sure dwarves have a general earth association and you could have the one fire associated volcano dwarf, but it's not like you're getting cloud dwarves and scuba dwarves and forest dwarves.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

i can see your point but i don't think there needs to Only Ever Be One elemental species, does that mean there can only be one strong species? only one stealthy species?

Seriously, maybe.

ect, ect..., genasi are the high magic elemental associated species and goliaths are the lower magic one, plus i feel it's not quite the same when it's a one-off variant in a species, sure dwarves have a general earth association and you could have the one fire associated volcano dwarf, but it's not like you're getting cloud dwarves and scuba dwarves and forest dwarves.

I just don't like how D&D does species. There are too many, their thematics are overlapping and confused. I'd rather have fewer, more developed species who each had their own clear thematic niche.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I just don't like how D&D does species. There are too many, their thematics are overlapping and confused.I'd rather have fewer, more developed species who each had their own clear thematic niche.

on this i can agree, the array of species could certainly be condensed some, but 'there can only ever be one' is a touch too far in my opinion, genasi and goliath might both have elemental variants as a core concept but that's not their only concepts they have. that's like saying a carrot and a mango are basically the same thing because they're both orange.

 

[Minigiant]

Decent point, but isn't that just a different visual interpretation of the same creature, rather than a subspecies?

Like in D&D (IIRC) orcs are canonically grey but in my setting they're green. But that's not really a subspecies, just an artistic choice of how to visually represent them.

Anime orcs are not as fast as D&D orcs.

More like green pigmen.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't mind species with elemental association, but please can we just have one? It used to be the genasi, but now the goliaths are elementally associated as well. So I don't want to add elemental dwarves to the mix too.

That's why I'm only suggesting Volcano dwarves which are close to MTG dwarves, Age of Signar Fyreslayers, and TOTV Forge dwarves.

Dwarves with fire adaption due to closeness to volcanoes.

 

[Remathilis]

Seriously, maybe.


I just don't like how D&D does species. There are too many, their thematics are overlapping and confused. I'd rather have fewer, more developed species who each had their own clear thematic niche.

Again, the problem with D&D species is that they have to be generic to support the half-dozen D&D settings each with different niches for them.

Look warforged. They have a strong thematic and mechanical niche because they exist in only one world. They aren't made to be generic construct people. Contrast that to elves who have to support dozens of different cultures on different worlds. And look how bland and boring they are for that.

If you want to make species have more nuance than "elemental race, fiend race, cat race, vampire race, etc" then drop support for all but one setting and give them room to grow in that setting!