D&D 5E What races do you expect to see in the core books?

[Shemeska]

I agree with this.

Though I am curious what the 5E view for Tieflings will be since the 4E PHB style Tieflings were a departure from the style of Tieflings which had come before.

If it were me, I'd simply say the 4E style Tieflings (and the ones which would be in the PHB) were from a specific bloodline tied to the specific pact made by that bloodline many generations ago; hence the more uniform appearance to that style of Tiefling. That allows to have both styles while acknowledging that they aren't the same thing -despite sharing a common name. "Tiefling" could be the broad category; more 'scientific' names would refer to specific types of Tieflings.

Absolutely. Well prior to 4e there were already specific true-breeding lines of tieflings such as FR's fey'ri (a line of gold elf / demon-blooded tieflings), and if we need to preserve the 4e tiefling as an option in print, that would seem like the intelligent way to go. But the default should probably go back to the 2e/3e classic tiefling with their wild crazy variety of heritage, origin, and descent from any fiend at all.

 

[ppaladin123]

I'd prefer they had a planetouched race that included aasimar, tiefling, and genasi as sub-types but I imagine we will have to wait for a FR book to see genasi.

I do expect to see dragonborn of some sort and tieflings....possibly aasimar but not sure.

Here are races that I wish would be in PHB but probably won't:

warforged or generic magical construct
shifter or generic beastman
mul or generic half-dwarf
thri-kreen or generic insect-man

 

[Argyle King]

Absolutely. Well prior to 4e there were already specific true-breeding lines of tieflings such as FR's fey'ri (a line of gold elf / demon-blooded tieflings), and if we need to preserve the 4e tiefling as an option in print, that would seem like the intelligent way to go. But the default should probably go back to the 2e/3e classic tiefling with their wild crazy variety of heritage, origin, and descent from any fiend at all.

I'd be fine with that. I vastly prefer the pre-4E Tieflings. 4E Tieflings were my least favorite race. However, I am aware that other people seem to like them a lot, and they do also meet the definition of a PHB1 race from one of the editions, so making the 5E PHB Tiefling be in the 4E style seems like the best way to go.


I just remembered something though...

4E Eladrin would also be a PHB race. Have they been addressed in 5E yet? I actually liked the split done to Elves in 4E because I always felt that D&D Elves (prior to 4E) were trying to cover too many archetypes within one race. I also liked getting away from the apparent need to have a new Elven subrace every time a new D&D book came out.

 

[Shemeska]

I'd prefer they had a planetouched race that included aasimar, tiefling, and genasi as sub-types but I imagine we will have to wait for a FR book to see genasi.

Why would we need to wait for an FR book for genasi? Genasi originated in Planescape in the Planewalker's Handbook, and didn't show up in FR till 2001's 'Monsters of Faerun'. I'm not sure why they showed up in that book though to be honest versus something more thematically appropriate like the 3e MotP, but they did.

 

[tsadkiel]

If they're doing what I think they're doing, I expect to see all of the races we've seen in the playtest, plus. And I think they'll be presented much as they are now; core four races first, with the other races labelled as optional and featuring blurbs about the campaign worlds they come from.

I think the idea is to get people playing right away rather than having to wait for a setting sourcebook that might never actually come out.

 

[the Jester]

I expect that the following races from the D&D Next Playtest to be...

Dragonborn___Core or Setting Book (Dragonlance)

Oh hell no. Dragonborn are NOT a Dragonlance race. Not at all. You're thinking of draconians, which are entirely different. The dragonborn race in 5e MUST support the 4e version, which is based on a not-Dragonlance world, if it's going to make the people happy that it needs to make happy. Consigning it to a DL setting book would be a huge mistake IMHO.

I just remembered something though...

4E Eladrin would also be a PHB race. Have they been addressed in 5E yet?

Gray elves.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Oh hell no. Dragonborn are NOT a Dragonlance race. Not at all. You're thinking of draconians, which are entirely different. The dragonborn race in 5e MUST support the 4e version, which is based on a not-Dragonlance world, if it's going to make the people happy that it needs to make happy. Consigning it to a DL setting book would be a huge mistake IMHO.

Near the end of 4e, draconians became playable dragonborn subtypes.

In effect, now draconians are Dragonlance's version of the dragonborn. As DL was never officially published for 4e, they became a bit unmoored from their previous flavor.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I'd like to just see the Tolkien races. Anything else gets some people cranky.

I would like to see gnomes, tieflings, dragonborn, half-orcs and other such races in a non-core book. But I doubt that will happen. Leaving out races makes some cranky too.

no the idea of D&D as Tolkien only needs to die in a fire...

If they include tieflings, but model them on 4e tieflings rather than the very different 2e/3e tieflings, I'll be cranky.

If they include dragonborn but don't also include aasimar, I'll be cranky.

It's probably best to only include the classic races: human, elf, dwarf, halfling, gnome, half-elf, half-orc.

I will be cranky if dragon born are left out...

and hell no cut and past races or build your own please... 4e made tiefling a race, 2e, and 3e had them as indviduals that do not represent a race... where there is room for "Special Snow flake Races" it isn't in the PHB... put design your own half breed in the Unearthed arcana and have it be 3e style tiefling (along with other things)

 

[Argyle King]

Oh hell no. Dragonborn are NOT a Dragonlance race. Not at all. You're thinking of draconians, which are entirely different. The dragonborn race in 5e MUST support the 4e version, which is based on a not-Dragonlance world, if it's going to make the people happy that it needs to make happy. Consigning it to a DL setting book would be a huge mistake IMHO.



Gray elves.

Originally, I quote you so I could respond to the elven conversation, but I also agree with the Dragonlance comment. Despite possibly looking similar, Dragonborn and Draconians are very different things, and should be kept as such.


Do 5E Gray Elves teleport? Despite having been playing 5E for a little while now, I haven't read much of the material in depth.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Originally, I quote you so I could respond to the elven conversation, but I also agree with the Dragonlance comment. Despite possibly looking similar, Dragonborn and Draconians are very different things, and should be kept as such.

If draconians aren't going to be playable, I agree Frankly the most interesting part of most old school draconians was their death throes, not exactly something useful for most PCs.

Do 5E Gray Elves teleport? Despite having been playing 5E for a little while now, I haven't read much of the material in depth.

No, they don't do that kind of thing. The flavor split between eladrin and "wild" elves will probably never go away (that went back to Tolkien) but the rules can markedly vary among editions.