D&D 5E Player's Handbook Races

fba827

Adventurer
Some of those races haven't historically had sub races. So it'll be interesting to see if they make some or not for them.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Wolfskin

Explorer
What's going to be interesting to see is how they define tieflings, and if it favors the classic 2e/3e version or the rather different 4e version.
IIRC, in the playtest document 2e's Tieflings were renamed as "Planetouched" and are a blanket category for "humans with extraplanar blood". The Tieflings in the PHB will be probably 4e ones.
 

Remathilis

Legend
I know there are some races in the DMG (warforged and kender) and MM (orcs, goblins, etc) but I wonder how long we will have to wait to see aasimars, goliaths, changlings, shifters, genasi, and other additional races?
 

Sonny

Adventurer
They aren't my favorite (And why isn't Aasimar a base race if Tiefling is one?), but it's just fine since they didn't exclude former base races to include them.

Because one of the goals they had for the races (as stated way back in 2012) was to have all races that were present in every edition's first Player's Handbook playable right out the gate.
 

TwoSix

Unserious gamer
Also known as "My Favorite Book of All Time Ever". The original one, at least. I also think that the Inner Planes and demiplanes influenced by "classical" elements are underutilized. But I know that's not a popular opinion. :D
I agree you can do a lot with them, if you imagine them more thematically and less as a brutally oppressive "AHH, I'm (burning/buried/drowning) alive!". Caverns a mile high, filled with iridescent rocks and glowing fungus for the Plane of Earth, for example. Or cloud palaces, connected by soaring golden bridges for the plane of Air.
 

shadow

First Post
I'm interested in how the Dragonborn and Tieflings will be handled. I've always like the Tieflings in the Planescape setting - a race with a trace of fiendish ancestry. On the other hand, I didn't care as much for the 4e Tieflings. Maybe, it's because the Planescape Tieflings had varied appearance (reflecting their various fiendish ancestry) and came across as a little roguish, whereas I felt that the 4e Tieflings looked a little like they were trying too hard to be fiendish and bad@$$.

As for Dragonborn, I don't mind the concept, but I didn't like the 4e Dragonborn too much. That was mainly an artwork issue with me. (I know that it comes across as a little petty!) When I first saw the 4e Dragonborn concept artwork, I thought that it was artwork for lizardmen or Yuan-Ti. Where are they wings (even vestigial)? Where are the tails. Anyway, I thought that Monte Cook did a better job with the Dracha from Arcana Evolved. With different artwork and a better backstory, I can see the Dragonborn being a viable race for my campaign.

Just my 2cp
 


Emka

First Post
I very much liked the Eladrin vs Elf instead of High Elf vs Wood Elf, sad to see it gone. But hey Tieflings so.. !
 

Paraxis

Explorer
I just hope that female dragonborn look like they do in 4e. They are not lizards so I am happy with dragon boobs.

111128.jpg
 

Shemeska

Adventurer
IIRC, in the playtest document 2e's Tieflings were renamed as "Planetouched" and are a blanket category for "humans with extraplanar blood". The Tieflings in the PHB will be probably 4e ones.

I know, I'm just hoping that they don't make that mistake. It's just a lot more respectful to the history of the game to keep the classic tiefling as the default one.

The 2e/3e tieflings have a longer history and larger amount of material written using them than the 4e versions, the 4e versions are very different, and "Planetouched" has already been used in the past to mean something very different than the proposed 5e meaning (it collectively referred to any mortal with a fraction of outsider or elemental blood: tieflings, aasimar, genasi, etc).
 

Charles Wright

First Post
Because one of the goals they had for the races (as stated way back in 2012) was to have all races that were present in every edition's first Player's Handbook playable right out the gate.

And this prevents them from writing up Aasimar as a playable race in the PHB how?

[Edit: They got them all in, nothing prevents them from adding another 1 or 2 is what I'm saying]
 

Kind of a lame preview for WotC to put out, as we already knew all the info. (Well we can examine the fonts and background I guess).

My only real concern is that they need to keep Planescape Tieflings distinct from 4e Tieflings, and present them with Aasimars. From the playtest text it appears that is what they were planning on doing (having a Planetouched race with Planescape Tieflings as a subrace (perhaps under a different name)), but a lot could have changed since then.

So I'm hoping the reason there are no Aasimar is because these aren't that kind of Tiefling.
 

GrumpyGamer

First Post
I like that they have expanded the core races in the PHB to include two from 4e. Campaigns are going to have their own lists of playable races, and nothing is lost from having more options for DMs to select from.
 

RichGreen

Explorer
Hi,

Great to see the dragonborn and tieflings in there alongside the not unexpected gnome. There have been three dragonborn PCs in my Parsantium campaigns and I've been having fun playing a tiefling warlord since KotS :)

Cheers


Rich
 

Charles Wright

First Post
I have to admit that I forgot what they did to the Tiefling race which created the necessity of creating the "Planetouched Tiefling" as a word. It's the reason I don't like the appropriation of terms to mean something different from the intention of the original meaning.
 

Sonny

Adventurer
And this prevents them from writing up Aasimar as a playable race in the PHB how?

I'm just stating the reasoning for providing the races they did in the PH, and why AAsimar weren't on the list. They had a clear content goal, and they met it. I'm somewhat disappointed that Aasimar aren't there, since I like them a lot, but I also know they had to stop somewhere and PH space is at a premium.
 

Remathilis

Legend
I know, I'm just hoping that they don't make that mistake. It's just a lot more respectful to the history of the game to keep the classic tiefling as the default one.

The 2e/3e tieflings have a longer history and larger amount of material written using them than the 4e versions, the 4e versions are very different, and "Planetouched" has already been used in the past to mean something very different than the proposed 5e meaning (it collectively referred to any mortal with a fraction of outsider or elemental blood: tieflings, aasimar, genasi, etc).

This is where I feel the subrace thing will work out.

One subrace of tiefling has a clear lineage: the Hellborn. They are descended from an ancient pact made with devils by an evil empire long ago. Such tieflings have a uniform appearance and characteristics (befitting ones made of LE stock).

While another subrace has a less known origin, the mongrels. Their bloodline is muted with a mix of fiendish and humanoid stock, and while the majority appear mostly human, a small fiendish feature betrays their ancestry. These tieflings lack a uniform characteristic in appearance (and perhaps even in powers) and lack the common cultures the hellborn tieflings have.

So one subrace is for 4e tieflings, the other for 2e/3e ones.
 

Charles Wright

First Post
I'm just stating the reasoning for providing the races they did in the PH, and why AAsimar weren't on the list. They had a clear content goal, and they met it. I'm somewhat disappointed that Aasimar aren't there, since I like them a lot, but I also know they had to stop somewhere and PH space is at a premium.
Now that it's been brought to my attention that the "Tiefling" race in question will most likely be the 4E version, (one that breeds true with huge horns and cloven feet) I'm kind of glad that they didn't make an Aasimar version of that.
 


An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top