D&D 5E What new linages do you want?


log in or register to remove this ad



It seems like the goal is to play D&D though, not switch systems. So there's that...
Say I want to play a flying octopus that can breathe air, and has the ability to manifest all physical attacks psionically, and its species came from outer space, so naturally, said octopus has a space ship to whisk the players to other planets, and also, use lasers on the ship to fight space battles. Is that still D&D?
 

TwoSix

Unserious gamer
There are many many game systems out there that allow a player to create a char from scratch, like Heroes. It would be vastly easier for the OP to play that game, than changing the 5e system.
5e is such an overwhelming presence in the TTRPG space that's it's often easier to mod 5e into the form you want, as long as the game is fantasy-adjacent.

And honestly, 5e is easy to mod. It's only loosely balanced, anyway. My last couple characters have actually been classes or subclasses I've built from scratch.
 

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
Say I want to play a flying octopus that can breathe air, and has the ability to manifest all physical attacks psionically, and its species came from outer space, so naturally, said octopus has a space ship to whisk the players to other planets, and also, use lasers on the ship to fight space battles. Is that still D&D?
Are you playing D&D isn't a question we need to unpack. You either are or you aren't. Moving on...
 

Paul Smart

Explorer
Bear people. Kobold Press has already done it, but it would be cool to see in an official 5E supplement.

Bear people would be great. I love bears; they are one of my favourite types of animals.

Either an Undead lineage (if lineage is roughly equal to templates) or Derro, or a plant person race.

I think having an option to make your linage undead is a great idea. You want an undead human, slap the undead template on. A cat person who is also undead. Undead template.

Thinking about this further, there are a variety of templates that could be added.

  • Undead - you do not age, breath, no requirement to eat or drink. You do not sleep.
  • Fae - some fae magic.
  • Giant - one size larger than normal. Great carrying capacity.
  • Tiny - one size smaller than normal.
  • Infernal / Abasyal / Celestial
 

First: 4e-style genasi. Those were cool.

Second: generic, make-your-own beastfolk rules. Because:

1. There's a nearly infinite number of beast to folk,
2. So you'll never get them all, or even a significant minority, handling them one by one,
3. People who are fans of a certain animal will have very specific things they want represented,
4. And different fans will want very different things,
5. But if everyone just gets to pick three options off a list you only need to watch out for players making intentionally ridiculous choices because they aren't taking it seriously, which is a general rpg issue.

And plant people, because that absolutely feels like a gap.
 


Bear people would be great. I love bears; they are one of my favourite types of animals.



I think having an option to make your linage undead is a great idea. You want an undead human, slap the undead template on. A cat person who is also undead. Undead template.

Thinking about this further, there are a variety of templates that could be added.

  • Undead - you do not age, breath, no requirement to eat or drink. You do not sleep.
  • Fae - some fae magic.
  • Giant - one size larger than normal. Great carrying capacity.
  • Tiny - one size smaller than normal.
  • Infernal / Abasyal / Celestial
I played in a campaign where the DM killed the entire party within the first 20 minutes of the first session, and we all "awoke" as Undead. None of us knew he was doing this. He was a really nice guy, very earnest to make a campaign work. Just not that bright. I was playing a Life Cleric. He stopped dead when I showed him the Cure Wounds spell does not work on Undead.

It was also not exactly funny when I used Turn Undead and I ran screaming from myself. And a Grave Cleric will automatically kill himself. You want to mess with all the various labels you want to "slap" on a char...you might want to have a real close look at the game mechanics before you do so.
 

Nutation

Explorer
I'm probably going against the grain here, but unless we're going campaign-specific, I'd like less "fantastic creature" PC races/species/lineages, and divide humans in a dozen distinct lineages.
It's already a problem in Adventurers League. Every player is supposed to feel welcome, so when they bring their cat people, their turtle people, their fey, and so on into the game I'm running, then the isolated village NPCs are supposed to take it all in stride.
 

UngainlyTitan

Legend
Supporter
Say I want to play a flying octopus that can breathe air, and has the ability to manifest all physical attacks psionically, and its species came from outer space, so naturally, said octopus has a space ship to whisk the players to other planets, and also, use lasers on the ship to fight space battles. Is that still D&D?
Yep, I am sure Gary would allow it.
 

It's already a problem in Adventurers League. Every player is supposed to feel welcome, so when they bring their cat people, their turtle people, their fey, and so on into the game I'm running, then the isolated village NPCs are supposed to take it all in stride.
Exactly. It is incredibly selfish of players to think they can airdrop any species they want into a game, and the DM will automatically accommodate that species into the setting.
 

BookTenTiger

He / Him
Dog people, absolutely! I'm shocked these haven't existed in D&D for a long time.

In fact, an "Awakened Animal" race would be fun, with abilities you can choose to play as, say, a wizard's familiar or a druid's companion.

Spider people would be neat too. You could tie it into mythological story weavers.
 


el-remmen

Moderator Emeritus
Exactly. It is incredibly selfish of players to think they can airdrop any species they want into a game, and the DM will automatically accommodate that species into the setting.

But this has nothing to do with what the OP is asking about. DMs and players have to work out what is available in their games, that should be a given. The OP is just asking about what options people would like to see, not making a post demanding that all games must allow all lineages. Your "Is it really D&D?" derailment is (at best) preferable in its own thread, though to be honest it feels like a pointless question. It is ALL D&D - the people at the table are the ones who decide that.
 

But this has nothing to do with what the OP is asking about. DMs and players have to work out what is available in their games, that should be a given. The OP is just asking about what options people would like to see, not making a post demanding that all games must allow all lineages. Your "Is it really D&D?" derailment is (at best) preferable in its own thread, though to be honest it feels like a pointless question. It is ALL D&D - the people at the table are the ones who decide that.
Once again, we are dealing with the thin edge of the wedge. Talking about "what would people like to add" quickly morphs into "I want you to add these to your game, otherwise you are limiting my fun, and you then by definition, a bad DM".
 

But this has nothing to do with what the OP is asking about. DMs and players have to work out what is available in their games, that should be a given. The OP is just asking about what options people would like to see, not making a post demanding that all games must allow all lineages. Your "Is it really D&D?" derailment is (at best) preferable in its own thread, though to be honest it feels like a pointless question. It is ALL D&D - the people at the table are the ones who decide that.
Oh, and it is the DM that decides what is allowed at the table. No one else. The players ratify those decisions by either staying, or walking away from the table. A D&D table is not a democracy.
 

el-remmen

Moderator Emeritus
Once again, we are dealing with the thin edge of the wedge. Talking about "what would people like to add" quickly morphs into "I want you to add these to your game, otherwise you are limiting my fun, and you then by definition, a bad DM".

Despite fearing that it will continue the derailment, I can't help myself and give the only rational response I can think of: You are taking an imagined scenario at the table and deciding that it should limit the options in the game that others are fine with. If you don't have player buy-in with your view of the setting/game, the answer lies with talking it out with those players, not yelling into the wind about what should or should not be published - esp. not in a thread of people happily discussing possibilities.

And for the record, I prefer humanocentric games - but I long ago got over any arrogance that my preferences equate what is best for the game or for other people's tables. Instead, I get player buy-in and figure out compromised exceptions when I need to and then . . . SHOCKER. . . we all have fun.
 


Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top