D&D 5E The Race Docket: What Races do you want to see first for 5e?

[steeldragons]

Starter Set [Player's book]: Human, Elf [high], Dwarf [hill], Halfling
- Optional Unusual/Rare Races [I would prefer included in the DM's book]: Dragonborn (hate 'em but know they are a given for the 4e crowd), Gnome, Half-elf, Tiefling (again, hate, but unquestioningly included)

"Standard/Complete" Player's Handbook: Human, Elf: High/Wood/[don't wannem but know they'll be there]Drow, Dwarf: Mountain/Hill, Halfling, Gnome: Forest/Rock, Half-Elf, Half-Orc, Dragonborn, Tiefling,...and for my money, if they are going to make tieflings a "default" player race, then Aasimar belong there too. Ideally, both/all "planetouched" folks would be included in the "Optional Unusual/Rare Races" in the "standard/complete" DMG. But I don't see that happening.

A paragraph/mention of other setting-specific races...to be fleshed out in setting specific books. Neither the PHB nor DMG of the standard/complete" game should include things like Warforged, Kender, Minotaurs, Muls, Thri-kreen, or any of the myriad other races that are possible (it's D&D, anything is possible).

Mentioning somewhere:

"In addition to the races presented here, there are magic sentient robots and all manner of planar beings in Eberron, Drow aplenty and centaurs in the Forgotten Realms, supremely annoying halflings and noble minotaurs in Dragonlance, neuter half-dwarves and mantis-people in Dark Sun, and many more strange and unusual races for you to explore across the spectrum of worlds of Dungeons & Dragons. Consult with your Dungeon Master to work out strange and unusual races that might be available in the world setting of your game!"

seems more than adequate.

Naturally, some "Player Races Vomitorium Compleat" will be necessary, a year or two down the line, for the "Where's my monster-PC!?!?!" crowd with instructions for everything from gnolls & kobolds to various faerie folk, genasi, archons, hobgoblins and half-ogres, blah-blah-blah...to match the standardized player race material as presented in the core materials!...not some separate "monster PC system."


Taking up space with stats and listing for setting-specific races (or any other setting-specific material, for that matter) is a no-go for me.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

A paragraph/mention of other setting-specific races...to be fleshed out in setting specific books. Neither the PHB nor DMG of the standard/complete" game should include things like Warforged, Kender, Minotaurs, Muls, Thri-kreen, or any of the myriad other races that are possible (it's D&D, anything is possible).

I'm afraid that horse has rather bolted.

Warforged are confirmed as in the DMG, last I heard. They stopped being a "setting-specific" race in 4E, if not before.

Minotaurs were last a "setting-specific" race in the early '90s. Rational, non-curse-caused minotaurs are pretty much a generic fantasy trope at this point - far more so than Gnomes, and I would bet real money that in a totally honest survey of D&D players, we'd find more people had played Minotaurs than, say, Gnomes.

Kender, Muls and Thri-Kreen are genuine examples of setting-specific races (though various half-dwarves have appeared in a ton of settings, going right back to 2E's release and perhaps before - usually they're just treated as dwarves or humans, though).

Part of the issue is that the FR simply accretes races. Even if a race is setting-specific, you can bet that within five years, unless it's totally tied into that setting culturally, it'll have turned up in an FR product (this was true even 2E).

The issue with Aasimar is that they aren't very popular, because simply being a Cleric/Paladin is "pretty much the same thing" for most people - they don't have highly distinctive features like Tieflings tend to (i.e. horns, colourful skin, scary eyes, tails). Aasimar tend to simply be "A really good-looking human that glows!". Well, my 18 CHA human Paladin is a really good-looking human that glows, so... WotC tried to fix this in 4E with their Devas, which had a bit more spin and distinctiveness than just "Angelic people" (part of the problem is that for our culture, angelic typically = beautiful, and beautiful = mainstream human, not weird features), and were actually rather sadly overlooked, because they were conceptually far, far stronger than Aasimar. Plus, let's be real here, "I am blessed by my angelic ancestors!" as a background makes you sound like kind of a boring advantaged rich person. You have no adversity to work against, and no real culture beyond that which raised you. Even an Elf has more adversity to work against, and an actual culture to boot (as Tieflings acquired in 4E)!

So I think that, unless they can give Aasimar a better raison d'etre than "Well Tieflings exist so...", they should probably be pretty low-priority. Give 'em some distinctive features that aren't "Like a human/elf but prettier and glow-ier and probably smells better". Maybe they should have six eyes like Biblical Seraphim, or other scary/bizarre/whoa traits drawn from the angels and angel equivalents of world culture (the Bible has tons of scary/weird angels - the phrase "wheels within wheels" is a physical description of an angel, for goodness sake!*). So yeah, they need help. A lot of help.


* = see here: http://biblehub.com/ezekiel/1-16.htm

EDIT - I'd also briefly mention that the main problem with Human/Elf/Dwarf/Halfling as the "core" is that it doesn't hit all the basic race types players are looking for. The basic race-types are, imo, "Human" (a lot of people just want to play humans), Pretty/Snooty Dudes (Elves hit this), Tough, Hard-working, Never-Say-Die dudes (Dwarves hit this), Short, Joke-y Dudes (Halflings), Big, Tough Honorable-Warrior Dudes (bzzzt no race - Goliaths, Dragonborn, Minotaurs and others can go here), Darksider (bzzzt no race - Tieflings are the perfect fit, Drow are good but being elves means some people who like Darksider-types will never like them), and Beastman/Freak race (some people always want to be something bizarre, or animal-men, there are a ton of races which can go here). Robot is also increasing in popularity, but not at the level of others yet (Warforged can go there).

 

[Remathilis]

Wow. I did NOT expect responses this far afield!

I assumed the phb races are set in stone and was asking what do you want to see next in supplements or online. There is 0% chance we won't see the playtest races SOMEWHERE in the core (though where is dependant on the specific race; orcs in the MM, warforged in the DMG, elves in the PHB.)

Though I'm kinda getting the impression that we want less races; not more. If there is a consensus, It's "Tolkien plz, no half breeds, no robats". While I don't necessarily want 30 races in the PHB, I do want to have races for dragonborn, changelings and genasi sooner rather than later.

 

[steeldragons]

-snip a lot of personal preferences and broad assumptions of others' desires and what constitutes "generic fantasy tropes"-

Needless to say, I disagree with pretty much everything you assert. Your 4venger preferences and defensiveness are so noted and not in jeopardy of attack.

Thankfully, the name of the thread is "What Races do you [meaning 'me/I'] want to see first..." so I will simply stick to all of my original post and my particular preferences and what I think would be best for the races " want to see."

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Though I'm kinda getting the impression that we want less races; not more. If there is a consensus, It's "Tolkien plz, no half breeds, no robats". While I don't necessarily want 30 races in the PHB, I do want to have races for dragonborn, changelings and genasi sooner rather than later.

That's a not a consensus, it's a popular minority opinion! Seriously. Might win in a first-past-the-post election, but it'd probably have to form a coalition with the Tiefling party.

A consensus would require most people to broadly agree, and that's not happening.

The reality is, generally-speaking, we all want the races we actually like to see in our campaigns or play, and we don't give a sod about the ones we don't. My personal top races are not the same as the ones I think the game actually needs to include. I mean, I'd have Changelings at the top, but I'm pretty sure that realistically, they can wait a bit - if they were in the MM as a race as well as a monster that'd be smart, though. I'd never include Halflings or Gnomes, and would replace them with Kobolds or the like (I find it hilarious that it is suggested that this is somehow a hardcore 4E perspective, given I was doing this in 2E, and every Kobold I've ever seen played was in 2E or 3E).

 

[Umbran]

Your 4venger preferences and defensiveness are so noted and not in jeopardy of attack.

I'm sorry, steeldragons, but you're over-reacting on this one. In trying to slap labels on the other person, you have shifted to ad hominem argument. Next time, please try to remember that you should address the logic and reasoning expressed in the post, not the person of the poster. Dismissing the person for a perceived attitude doesn't actually address their points, or prove them wrong.

 

[the Jester]

I would think Drow are not world specific - they were in Greyhawk long before FR. But I agree with the rest.

Yeah, but they aren't the dime-a-dozen, everyone-knows-a-good-Drow, weaksauce dark elves of FR. FR is the setting where Drow as pcs came into their own. GH, at least the GH written by Gygax, places Drow as a mysterious, largely unknown, fey race that isn't really for pcs, their inclusion in the 1e Unearthed Arcana (ugh!) aside.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Definitely do want to see Tieflings, but it's the more 2e Tieflings I want to see not the 4e ones. Somewhere they said there were going to be more 2e-like Tieflings even if they were going to also have the 4e varieties around, and even a suggestion of a generic Planetouched race. Though I don't know if that means that Planetouched and Tieflings end up as separate races, or Tiefling being a subrace of Planetouched. Aasimar would probably be included somewhere in that, though I think they should have some of the more differently appearing Aasimar like Qaida, the neutral evil Planetar descended Aasimar who appeared in a Planescape supplement. Then again Planetouched (who in some ways are like subraces for Humans) could be made generic enough to include not just Tieflings, Aasimar, Genasi, and things like Lawful and Chaotic planetouched but also things like Shadowborn/Shades/Whatever (last time I checked their were at least 3 shadow races), Kalashtar, Spirit Folk, and Changelings.

Gnomes to me will always be a core race, as they've been the PHB of editions I've played, and generally I prefer them over Halflings.

I think Shifters should be in the DMG, not to accommodate players who like Werewolves but more to accommodate those who want vaguely Zoo-Anthropomorphic races without going all the way in the menagerie of things like dog-people, cat-people, cow-people, llama-people and so on. Yes Hengeyokai also fill that category, but I don't think we'll see them for a while.

I definitely want the "monstrous" humanoid races in like Kobolds, Orcs, Goblins and Hobgoblins. In fact I prefer them over Dragonborn, as I have places for them to be as PC races in my campaigns over that of Dragonborn which I'd rather cut out or leave as uncommon.

Githzerai I'd certainly want for mostly Planescape and they'll probably end up in the MM or DMG with PC stats, but I'd certainly won't expect to see Bariaur (the least popular of the 3 races originally introduced in Planescape) for a while.

Beyond those I'd like the Elan, but they probably aren't going to appear until there's psionic stuff.

Of course there's plenty "forgettable" PC races introduced in later 3e and some of 4e (which actually cut down on those) that I don't want to see.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yeah, but they aren't the dime-a-dozen, everyone-knows-a-good-Drow, weaksauce dark elves of FR. FR is the setting where Drow as pcs came into their own. GH, at least the GH written by Gygax, places Drow as a mysterious, largely unknown, fey race that isn't really for pcs, their inclusion in the 1e Unearthed Arcana (ugh!) aside.

I don't think one can put that aside, because that is why Drow are a PC race at all, I'd suggest, and lead directly Drizzt etc.! It shows very clearly that there was demand for them as PCs, even then.

Remember, too, if it were up to Gary, we would not have Elves, Dwarves and Halflings at all - he was chivvied into putting them in, and didn't want to. People who actually played with him (Old Geezer on RPG.net, for example) seem to have suggested that he actually preferred stuff like playable Balrogs and so on to those (which Gary had is his campaign).

Re: Tieflings, I'd like to see both 2E and 4E Tieflings, perhaps with different names, because both have a lot of value. 4E should probably be the default, even though they are more boring, because they're more accessible/immediate (I prefer 2E personally).

 

[DMZ2112]

I thought this was established long ago: all races in the first players handbooks of previous editions are going to be there?

Where was this stated? I do tend to think it is likely, even if it hasn't been established as definite.

The only non-historically included race that I am hoping lands in the PHB is dragonborn. In general I think D&D4 went both race- and class-crazy; delegating the shifter and tiefling to later releases would not offend.

I could do without half races, but that's just a pet peeve.

I'm sure gnome will be in attendance I almost think it shouldn't because of the confusion D&D4 introduced to its identity. I liked the D&D4 gnome but it just doesn't jive with... well, /everything/ that's ever been previously published about gnomes. Sure, there have always been forest gnomes, but when were they ever relevant to the fiction? It won't happen, but I'd like to see the "forest" and "rock" gnomes be split into distinct and separate races, elf/eladrin style.

Speaking of which, I'm going to miss the elf-eladrin split. Moving that division back to a subrace distinction is a step in the wrong direction.