What about my dragonborn

I would rather they have actual dragons as a player race.

Dragonborn are just a little too deep into "furry" territory for me.

I'm not going to go into detail on this, but whatever you think is an issue with "furry" races is going to be much, much more severe for a mythical beast race.

That aside, I like dragonborn and tieflings (both the new AND the classic sorts). People play the heck out of them around here.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


I'm not going to go into detail on this, but whatever you think is an issue with "furry" races is going to be much, much more severe for a mythical beast race.

That aside, I like dragonborn and tieflings (both the new AND the classic sorts). People play the heck out of them around here.
My issue is I don't mind intelligent monster races (mental anthropomorphism), but I could do without monster races with human-like hands, feet, facial expressions and as mentioned above, bewbs (physical anthropomorphism).
 

Hopefully the first player's handbook will be big enough that it has the weird stuff in it already. 3.x did alright on that.

I guess. I'm all for D&D having weird stuff instead of being just stereotypical medieval fantasy. A part of its charm is how it combines so many different elements like Arthurian knights, Lovecraftian horrors and oriental kung fu masters. But for some reason I just wasn't a huge fan of the iconic picture of the fighter in 4th edition being a weird race like a dragonborn.

I guess it's because even though I like the bizarre stuff being around, I don't want it to be as common as some of the more mundane stuff. I feel like it loses its charm if it's everywhere. That's why I'd prefer extraplanar races and some of the more unorthodox races like dragonborn and minotaurs be non-core.

It's not a dealbreaker, though. I totally get that for some people dragonborn are an integral part of D&D, and if they're going to be core I'm not going to throw a hissy fit.
 

My issue is I don't mind intelligent monster races (mental anthropomorphism), but I could do without monster races with human-like hands, feet, facial expressions and as mentioned above, bewbs (physical anthropomorphism).

While I would like these options in ADDITION to the standard monstrous humanoid options, it's best to keep in mind that D&D is not hard sci-fi, and that hard sci-fi racial construction isn't likely to attract a larger audience than soft sci-fi racial construction.
 

Given that any individual race is probably going to take up only a page or two...go crazy, put 'em all in. However, also make sure that the "expert" or "advanced" race chapters have a clear notice that the availability of races...any races....is subject to the DMs definition of the campaign world, and or her approval.
 

I was initially opposed to the dragonborn, but they did grow on me, rather quickly. I'm actually in favor of them being added to the "stock" D&D races, at this point. They're a lot better than 4e tieflings, myconids, killoren, thri-kreen, and any dozens of others that have been offered up over the years.
 

I guess. I'm all for D&D having weird stuff instead of being just stereotypical medieval fantasy. A part of its charm is how it combines so many different elements like Arthurian knights, Lovecraftian horrors and oriental kung fu masters. But for some reason I just wasn't a huge fan of the iconic picture of the fighter in 4th edition being a weird race like a dragonborn.

I guess it's because even though I like the bizarre stuff being around, I don't want it to be as common as some of the more mundane stuff. I feel like it loses its charm if it's everywhere. That's why I'd prefer extraplanar races and some of the more unorthodox races like dragonborn and minotaurs be non-core.
Sure. But where do you draw the line? Do you want to see a watered down core with just the classic four races and four classes? It's a difficult issue.

How about this one: The Drow is pretty iconic. It's been a popular D&D race since, like, forever. Should it be core? I think we can follow 3.x's and 4e's example on this: the PHB has the "normal" races, and the Monster Manual has stats for the "weird" or "monstrous" NPC races... and then a later book presents the weird or monstrous races for players.

The Drow would probably be best suited for a Forgotten Realms book, but the Dragonborn? It's unlikely there'll be a Nentir Vale Campaign Setting. Maybe they could go in the FR book as part of the "support all timelines" thing. Just in the post-spellplague chapter, it can mention the strange half-dragon people who started wandering around the Realms, and give stats for it as a PC race. Then that whole chapter can be optional if you want to play a pre-spellplague game.
My issue is I don't mind intelligent monster races (mental anthropomorphism), but I could do without monster races with human-like hands, feet, facial expressions and as mentioned above, bewbs (physical anthropomorphism).
I think it's fine for intelligent monsters to have hand-like appendages (which are kind of a prerequisite for having technology of any kind), but I draw the line at non-mammal mammaries. It's really insulting and kind of gross.
 

I don't particularly care for monstrous races, like dragonborn, tieflings, dark elves, warforged, minotaurs, and the like. The "redeemed villain" trope is a bit played out, and I don't like to blur the line between the Good Guys and the Bad Guys.

But that's just me.

So if it were up to me, I would put only the "Top Five" races in the new PHB, and put everything else into a separate book for exotic/monstrous races...something like a 5E version of Savage Species. I'm not saying they shouldn't be available to players who want them; I just don't want to have to surgically extract them from the core rules.
 

My preference

IN Core: Gnome, Halfings, Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Half-Orcs, Half-Elves

Out of Core (secondary or Setting Specific): Dragonborn, Tiefling, Illumian, Drow, all the other odd/monstrous races

Out forever: Eladrin (retcon the unholy orcus out of this travesty)
 

Remove ads

Top