The also rans...

[steeldragons]

I voted for Aasimar and Tieflings as they NOT, as several have noted, "setting specific races." even if their pedigree of "traditional" from 2e Planescape is ignored, Tieflings were "core" to 4e...and thus, Aasimar are easily included as the flip-side of that "core."

Everything else...the OP said it in the opening post, "setting specific." NONE of them should be presented as "core races" in 5e.

Kender and gully dwarves go in the Krynn/Dragonlance setting book/module supplement.

Thri-kreen and Muls go in the Dark Sun setting book/module supplement.

Warforged...STAY IN EBERRON! They work there. They're cool there. They're part of the world history. They are "core" there. Shifters too, right? They're Eberron specific/originally aren't they? [I'm honestly not sure/don't remember.]

As for the rest, I don't know where they're from, specifically...But regardless, wherever they originated, that's the Setting book/module supplement they go in...not in the PHB.

If all of those individual setting books is an unrealistic expectation (and I am inclined to think it is), then a "5e Complete Book of Races" lumping them all in one book...talk about what world they originated in/their role/place in those worlds, their stats, abilities, etc...

Add in a few others that aren't even on that list, some of the "core race sub-races" that don't make the cut in the PHB (and I'm hoping most of them DON'T!)...or *gasp* gods forbid, some that have never been done before?

Maybe, some of the more common "Monster Races" could go in there too. Though I DO expect to see some guidelines/rules for generating those in the Monster Manual, itself.

So, yeah, put 'em in a "Complete Races" book/module supplement. Not muddying the waters in the primary/[hopefully] simple/"core" release of the PHB.

And on that note, though it's relatively unrelated, can I get an "Amen" (or just verbal/posted agreement that WotC will hopefully see) to have "A"..."Single"..."Uno"..."1" PHB!

--SD

 

[Doug McCrae]

Are any of these setting specific? Or, rather, are the concepts more specific than races which have appeared in the PHB? The default D&D world is a crazy quilt anyway.

 

[slobster]

And on that note, though it's relatively unrelated, can I get an "Amen" (or just verbal/posted agreement that WotC will hopefully see) to have "A"..."Single"..."Uno"..."1" PHB!

--SD

Sorry, I like the phb X's. Every time one was released there would be a period of excitement at my table where we tried out a whole bunch of new classes and races. I don't care if they call them "Advanced Player's Guides" or "Expanded Psionics Handbooks", but I do hope they continue to make books dedicated to giving players more exciting options.

Back to the more general topic, I agree that whether something is "setting specific" is not a good criteria for whether to include it in the game. Elves and dwarves are setting specific as much as aasimar are.

The criteria they will likely use, i.e. has it been in a phb before, is sufficient.

I would like the criteria to be a combination of appeal (are there people who want to play this race?) and the occupation of a distinct game niche (graceful and mystical, versatile and hardy, etc.). That way you give people who have played the game before what they want to see as well as offer a complete menu to those who come into DDN without any previous experience of D&D.

 

[steeldragons]

Sorry, I like the phb X's. Every time one was released there would be a period of excitement at my table where we tried out a whole bunch of new classes and races. I don't care if they call them "Advanced Player's Guides" or "Expanded Psionics Handbooks", but I do hope they continue to make books dedicated to giving players more exciting options.

OH! Those sortsa optional/additional things to add to the game are fine and dandy. I hope there is a nice spread of splats for races, classes, settings, whatever.

But they should be "Advanced Adventurer's Guide"s and "Expanded Psionics Handbooks". Not PHB2, PHB3, PHB42.

To play the game, I need (well, ok "want") 1 PHB, 1 DMG, and one more, probably/traditionally 1MM...but making the "World Builder's Guide" (to homebrew your whole own setting) or "Complete Book of Lairs" (for easy access to preset groupings of monsters to plug n' play) or "Manual of the Planes" (cus you want to have a whole campaign of planar travel/exploration) or whatever one's 3rd "core book" of choice for one's table is hunky dory fine.

But, at it's base, to play the game, 1 PHB and 1 DMG should be enough (ok, and some dice, but that's not a book). Everything else is added on by topic...not a PHB3, DMG26.

That's what I mean.
-SD

 

[CleverNickName]

In the core, none of them.

In supplements, I have no issue with them presenting any and all of these races. And I don't particularly care whether those are setting-specific supplements or generic ones. (Although if the races are presented in generic supplements, then I would prefer they be repeated in the appropriate "core book" for the setting.)

Yep. I tried to give you XP for this, but apparently I haven't been spreading enough of the love around.

 

[dammitbiscuit]

Taking them away from those elements and giving them as half-human/half-standard-dwarf seems . . . odd.

I don't see why half-dwarves would be something weird. Just don't call them muls, and give them their own flavor - probably pretty similar to the half-elf, but perhaps reticent instead of diplomatic in the face of racism.

 

[hafrogman]

I don't see why half-dwarves would be something weird. Just don't call them muls, and give them their own flavor - probably pretty similar to the half-elf, but perhaps reticent instead of diplomatic in the face of racism.

I guess that was the point I was trying to make. Half-dwarves based on normal dwarves wouldn't be muls. To have them come out as hairless would be odd, is what I meant. Half-dwarves as a new race is fine, but there's plenty of established races to deal with first before we get there.

 

[El Mahdi]

Which of the various setting specific races do you think deserve a place in 5e?

All of them.

 

[Andor]

I think he meant "Scro", which are super-orcs - like uruk-hai (and orcs spelled backwards. From Spelljammer, of course)

Yes, I meant Scro, my brain apparently phoneticized the word in my long term memory.

Also I forgot changelings. D'oh!

 

[Lanefan]

By "a place in 5e" do you mean as player character races, or as monsters?

As player races, none in core and maybe a few in their intended setting e.g. Kender in DL, Warforged (bleah) in Eberron, etc.

As monsters, all. Warforged would make great monsters!

Lanefan