D&D General Nonstandard Species: How Monstrous do they look in your game?

[Remathilis]

This is a question of taste, there is no right answer.

D&D species vaguely fall into three categories. Those that are essentially humans with some exaggerated features, (size, pointy ears, etc), those who are a mixture of human and animal (tabaxi, aarakroca), and those who are a mixture of human and monster (dragonborn, tiefling). I'm specifically interested into the latter two categories. For sake of argument, we'll call them monstrous species.

D&D has depicted monstrous species in wildly different ways. Some times, the species appears almost human, but with some tell-tale feature that gives it away. Other times, they verge on full-on human-shaped monster. For example, the tabaxi (and various cat-like species in prior editions) sometimes appear as humans with some feline features (upright ears, cat eyes, tales) while other times they are almost fully upright-standing great cats (furry bodies, feline faces, digigrade legs with paws, etc). Tieflings were initially described as human-looking with a whiff of something sinister (small horns, thin tails, brimstone odor) to being full-on devil peoples (red skin, giant horns, cloven hooves, vestigial wings). Even orcs have moved from the stooped posture and piglike faces to a more "human with small tusks" look. Add on to that all the various media that uses many of the same concepts and there are hundreds of different ways to describe these creatures.

So, how do you do it?

Are your orcs humanlike or pig-like, can your tieflings pass for humans or appear as full devilish looking beings? Do you have a set appearance or do you let players choose? Do you opt for exaggeration or aim for "human in cosplay makeup" appearances?

And yes, I know there are plenty of DMs who don't use anything outside the Tolkien four. For this, pretend you were going to allow or play one of these options, (as a PC or monster). Would you go for monstrous or humanish looking?

 

[Remathilis]

To answer my own post, I tend towards a 50/50 split when I'm depicting/describing them. My tieflings aren't full on demon-people, but they can range from passible-if-you-don't-look-too-close to "you'd barely notice unless you studied them. Ditto aasimar, who almost always look human unless in there manifestation. But things like dragonborn or tabaxi tend towards the "bipedal animal" look with animalistic heads, tails, scales/fur, etc.

An interesting topic came up with shifters as presented in Forge of the Artificer. Normally, shifters were presented as "human with beastial trait" but the FotA makes them full-on animal people. So when a player came to me asking to play one, I had to be sure she was interested in being a human with some feline traits and not a full-on cat person akin to a tabaxi. That's what got me thinking about how varied the descriptions of D&D species have been.

 

[bloodtide]

I go full Alien.

A race is unique and stands out, they are not just "exactly like humans in a mask".

No other race can pass for human in full open daylight. But sure like an elf in the dark under a hood "looks human".

I also take the step role playing. Every race is not "just like humans". They, for example, eat lots of foods and plants humans don't and won't.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Tieflings, Aasimar and Genasi are all over the place, some appear very close to their main mortal lineage (remember they aren't necessarily part Human) but other resemble fiends/celestials/elementals a lot more. Subtler Tieflings don't necessarily have horns and tails, they might only have 1 of those or none, more monstrous Tieflings might have multiple tusks, spikes, scales and extra limbs. Aasimar might have small parts of their body that are radiant energy or animal-like features. Genasi might slightly warm fire, tree branches and pebbles, water/sludge, clouds of smoke as hair for example.

Orcs I'm mainly going with how they appear in the 2024 PHB except that they can be green (unlike what the PHB says about Orcs having grey skin).

Goblins I have them being more diverse in appearances, they're still small human-like people with large pointed ears that go outwards. Nose-sizes and nose-shapes can vary such as being close to Human, or large pointed and hooked, or quite wide. Some have tusks, some have fangs or differences in which teeth are sharp. Mouth sizes can vary. Skin can be green, orange, yellow, blue and other colours. Hair varies quite a lot. Goblins can vary from being cute and attractive to quite ugly and feral.

 

[aco175]

I have always believed that someone too monstrous would be (or likely should be) attacked as a monster. The Tolkien 4 all are about human so it is easy to tell them apart from someone that looks like a devil or dragon. Playing a dragonborn or tiefling as just a biped with a funny head can be as hard or easy as the DM wants. The easiest is to just let them be like an elf walking down the street and do not add anything more.

Adding more might be adding stereotypes and having orcs be bodyguards since they are larger and might be stronger. Dragonborn might be bodyguards as well and people rely on their breath weapon. Keeping the races more human(ish) also makes it easier to skip development of these things and just let people play what they want without making up something to fit them in.

 

[Weiley31]

I go back and forth with either A:they both look monsterous and B: Anime/Video Game style where the males look more monster and the females are all pretty ladies.

Depends on setting/mood/mythology being used.

 

[TorgoTheWhite]

I usually have them close to human... because I run a somewhat grounded Sword&Sandal. Anyone who isn't human either got pitchforked for being freakazoids or they have understated features/hideable features. One of my tieflings has a freakish 3rd compound eye/gem he either hides with a black helm or under a headband.

 

[Scott Christian]

This is a question of taste, there is no right answer.

D&D species vaguely fall into three categories. Those that are essentially humans with some exaggerated features, (size, pointy ears, etc), those who are a mixture of human and animal (tabaxi, aarakroca), and those who are a mixture of human and monster (dragonborn, tiefling). I'm specifically interested into the latter two categories. For sake of argument, we'll call them monstrous species.

D&D has depicted monstrous species in wildly different ways. Some times, the species appears almost human, but with some tell-tale feature that gives it away. Other times, they verge on full-on human-shaped monster. For example, the tabaxi (and various cat-like species in prior editions) sometimes appear as humans with some feline features (upright ears, cat eyes, tales) while other times they are almost fully upright-standing great cats (furry bodies, feline faces, digigrade legs with paws, etc). Tieflings were initially described as human-looking with a whiff of something sinister (small horns, thin tails, brimstone odor) to being full-on devil peoples (red skin, giant horns, cloven hooves, vestigial wings). Even orcs have moved from the stooped posture and piglike faces to a more "human with small tusks" look. Add on to that all the various media that uses many of the same concepts and there are hundreds of different ways to describe these creatures.

So, how do you do it?

Are your orcs humanlike or pig-like, can your tieflings pass for humans or appear as full devilish looking beings? Do you have a set appearance or do you let players choose? Do you opt for exaggeration or aim for "human in cosplay makeup" appearances?

And yes, I know there are plenty of DMs who don't use anything outside the Tolkien four. For this, pretend you were going to allow or play one of these options, (as a PC or monster). Would you go for monstrous or humanish looking?

In our D&D campaigns, they are really whatever the player wants them to be. If they want to be a monstrous looking tabaxi, they can. If they want exaggerated their dragonborne to be almost human, yet have a few scales, they can. Since the species are really no longer tied to their culture, then it is really up to the player.

 

[RoughCoronet0]

Considering that I have more monstrous player options in my homebrew world then humanoid options, I say I lean more monstrous. I've even made a few species even more monstrous, like the Yuan-ti of my world now all looking like either the standard Yuan-ti Abominations or the Sethrak from World of Warcraft instead of just humans with some scales and reptilian eyes, and the Tritons of my world look like smaller 5e Merrow but with legs.

I've also added Gnolls, Drakkoths (think centaurs but replace the human part with a Lizardfolk and the horse part with a drake), Driders, Shardminds, and Wilden on top of all the already existing beastfolk species.

Having said that, I still have all the traditional humanoid species available too like Dwarves, Elves, Halflings, Gnomes, and so on.

 

[Clint_L]

Considering that I have more monstrous player options in my homebrew world then humanoid options, I say I lean more monstrous. I've even made a few species even more monstrous, like the Yuan-ti of my world now all looking like either the standard Yuan-ti Abominations or the Sethrak from World of Warcraft instead of just humans with some scales and reptilian eyes, and the Tritons of my world look like smaller 5e Merrow but with legs.

I've also added Gnolls, Drakkoths (think centaurs but replace the human part with a Lizardfolk and the horse part with a drake), Driders, Shardminds, and Wilden on top of all the already existing beastfolk species.

Having said that, I still have all the traditional humanoid species available too like Dwarves, Elves, Halflings, Gnomes, and so on.

Generally, I leave it up to the players when creating their characters. My orcs and goblins resemble World of Warcraft versions. I’m open to almost any species except those with flight at low levels.

My setting is quite diverse and I don’t use alignment. Most folks are aware that your species doesn’t determine your character, though some might have biases for geopolitical or historical reasons (“Halfling raiders wiped out my village!”etc.).