Orcs and Goblins I could see (and Orcs will be core in the new PHB), but I feel like Hobgoblins are in the same boat as elf variants. Plus they don't have the same instant recognition factor in fantasy pop culture. Granted, personally I find Goblins kinda overrated (plus the "look at the cute smol Goblin" trope is a bit overdone in D&D anymore).
Nothing is really "lost", given that this is much more of an update than a new edition, and it would be ludicrous for them to pull MotM at this point.
Also, I don't think Illithids and Gnolls need to be PC races; in the general 5e canon in particular Gnolls aren't a sapient free-willed race; they're hyenas uplifted by dark magic, typically by a demon prince. And the whole "eats the brains of sapient beings to survive" bit is too integral to the Mindflayer image to really part with and quite messy to manage as a PC race. We've also already got multiple beastfolk type races- particularly Shifters- and the naturally psionic Kalashtar to cover several of the general thematic niches of the two races as well.
More lore per race would be very nice, but honestly I'm not holding my breath for core books. They're trying (too hard in my opinion) to be "setting neutral" about race lore anymore in general use books.
personally thinking of it as: if the numbers changes (6E or One D&D) then its a new edition if the number isnt changed but instead becomes a newer version of the pre-existing edition (5.5E) then its the same edition and makes me question the overall purpose of the One D&D stuff
anywho i just think of gnolls as overly religious people with some anger issues and a tapeworm, didnt realise they came into existence through magical means but how would that differ from the warforged and autognome (being created) or the yaun-ti (converted via ancient rituals)
was of the opinion that the physical brains were secondary to a Illithids/mind flayers diet (not really needed to be devoured but instead collected kinda like books) and that they mainly just needed psionic energy to feed on to sustain themselves and advance their culture (if the brain comes from an intelligent humanoid), which i assume would be any creature with a brain (some may be snack size - a rat, others may be feast size - an educated individual)
in saying that im unsure how often dietary requirements come up in an adventure so unsure how much of an impact having a party member chowing down on a brain or a fresh kill would have on things, also unsure how a creature comes into existence affects things when it comes to a player character
If, by core, you mean in the 2024 PHB then I’m fine with the ones presented in the UA. The rest I’m fine added via supplement. To be honest when making a character I hardly consider the non-PHB races. Have a hard time picking Teifling let alone others. Although I did want to play a Bugbear Drunken Master Monk/Hunter Ranger that talked like Bobcat Goldthwait, but, alas, my DM doesn’t allow multiclassing or furry/feathered PCs in his homebrew setting
Orcs and Goblins I could see (and Orcs will be core in the new PHB), but I feel like Hobgoblins are in the same boat as elf variants. Plus they don't have the same instant recognition factor in fantasy pop culture. Granted, personally I find Goblins kinda overrated (plus the "look at the cute smol Goblin" trope is a bit overdone in D&D anymore).
The way I figure it, since orcs, goblins, and hobgoblins exist in pretty much every setting ever published for D&D, and since they’re of a suitable power level to build PCs with, it only makes sense. That’s what “core races/species” means to me, they exist everywhere.And those three I feel offer great “monstrous” counterparts to elves, dwarves, and gnomes in certain ways so it gives players a variety of things to choose from. The species that don’t really exist in every setting (dragonborn, tieflings, etc.) should be reserved for supplemental materials publcations.
It's worth asking whether things need to be mechanically different. Would it really be losing anything important if you said "Goblins: treat as Halflings"?
It's worth asking whether things need to be mechanically different. Would it really be losing anything important if you said "Goblins: treat as Halflings"?
It's worth asking whether things need to be mechanically different. Would it really be losing anything important if you said "Goblins: treat as Halflings"?
Not a lot, no. But I'd be happier with a simple differentiator, like, "goblins: treat as halflings, but replace Brave with Quick."
You could put pretty much everything in the core rules that way. The only problem is, it'd be harder to sell more races when there's barely anything in a race. And that's a big problem indeed, when you're a business.
Plus players enjoy the wider spread of features available in the current setup. Hypothetically you could try streamlining and just making a few interchangeable traits, but I doubt they could pull it off without making the options fairly generic.
Plus players enjoy the wider spread of features available in the current setup. Hypothetically you could try streamlining and just making a few interchangeable traits, but I doubt they could pull it off without making the options fairly generic.
Or a few traits that completely outshine the others so they end up “must take” traits.
Haven’t scanned the 4 pages just 1&4 but here are my takes:
1) given what we’ve seen in the UAs it’s going to be pretty much an update of 2014 - same races reworked to account for Xanther &Tasha et Al most of the “unusual” species are already recovered in MotM so they are not making it into the new PHB. Given that they took back most of their early actually different takes like the UA2 ranger and replaced them with the c**p in the later UAs I’m not expecting anything very different. further adding all the other species would make the book way too big and expensive ( that’s why they did MotM) so that’s not going happen.
2) what would I personally consider the core races? (whether they make it not the 2024 PHB or not) For me that would be the humans, the Fey ( Eladrin, elves, fairies and goblinoids), the dwarves, gnomes, Hin, orcs, the Dragonborn, the outsiders (Genasai, teiflings, Aasimar) and some of the critter folk (tabaxi, thre krin, loxodonts) these have been around seemingly forever and have become more or less “core” in my mind.
I think they should have examples of races and then have a list of abilities to mix so that you can build whatever you want
That would be cool, but next thing people will want classless, leveless systems where you can truly customize your character and make a good gish or something. It would be anarchy!!
I think they should have examples of races and then have a list of abilities to mix so that you can build whatever you want
In general RPG design terms that's an option, but it really doesn't work for when you're trying to design "races/species" because how exactly are we supposed to consider dwarves or orcs or halflings to be of a type when you can literally have an orc and a halfling with identical traits which are both completely different from what a corresponding member of what should be the same race has?
I could see maybe having a few choices within each race/species. Like Dwarves might have options between Stone Cunning and something else.
But the “build-a-bear” approach to races/species I don’t think would be a good idea. As I mentioned above it could lead to “must take” traits that leads to what The_Ace_of_Rogues mentions where you could end up with a Goliath and Halfling being virtually identical other than size (and maybe not even that!)
I think they should have examples of races and then have a list of abilities to mix so that you can build whatever you want
That one's unlikely to happen in D&D, whether or not it's a good idea. Class and species are pretty fundamental to the idea of "what makes D&D D&D".
They also make it easy to pick up and go for players new to the game, or RPGing. "You can be anything you want" is good for many purposes, but it's kind of intimidating. "You can be any of this list of things" is much easier, even if it's somewhat limiting on experienced players.
I think they should have examples of races and then have a list of abilities to mix so that you can build whatever you want
In general RPG design terms that's an option, but it really doesn't work for when you're trying to design "races/species" because how exactly are we supposed to consider dwarves or orcs or halflings to be of a type when you can literally have an orc and a halfling with identical traits which are both completely different from what a corresponding member of what should be the same race has?
Can you really not make the creative leap that would explain why an orc might have Stout resistance rather than Powerful build. Why a Halfling might Surprise attack and not Lucky. Why an Elf Has Relentless Endurance but not the traditional elvish long life, trance and elvish weapon training?
I think they should have examples of races and then have a list of abilities to mix so that you can build whatever you want
That would be cool, but next thing people will want classless, leveless systems where you can truly customize your character and make a good gish or something. It would be anarchy!!
It might not be “anarchy,” but it sure as shootin’ wouldn’t be D&D anymore. Besides, I’m pretty sure that game exists out there, if that’s what people wanna play, let ‘em go play that game instead.
IMO Orcs, Goblins, and Hobgoblins should be just as “core” as Elves, Dwarves, and Gnomes, or Humans and Hin (Halflings).
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Orcs and Goblins I could see (and Orcs will be core in the new PHB), but I feel like Hobgoblins are in the same boat as elf variants. Plus they don't have the same instant recognition factor in fantasy pop culture. Granted, personally I find Goblins kinda overrated (plus the "look at the cute smol Goblin" trope is a bit overdone in D&D anymore).
personally thinking of it as:
if the numbers changes (6E or One D&D) then its a new edition
if the number isnt changed but instead becomes a newer version of the pre-existing edition (5.5E) then its the same edition and makes me question the overall purpose of the One D&D stuff
anywho i just think of gnolls as overly religious people with some anger issues and a tapeworm, didnt realise they came into existence through magical means but how would that differ from the warforged and autognome (being created) or the yaun-ti (converted via ancient rituals)
was of the opinion that the physical brains were secondary to a Illithids/mind flayers diet (not really needed to be devoured but instead collected kinda like books)
and that they mainly just needed psionic energy to feed on to sustain themselves and advance their culture (if the brain comes from an intelligent humanoid), which i assume would be any creature with a brain (some may be snack size - a rat, others may be feast size - an educated individual)
in saying that
im unsure how often dietary requirements come up in an adventure so unsure how much of an impact having a party member chowing down on a brain or a fresh kill would have on things, also unsure how a creature comes into existence affects things when it comes to a player character
If, by core, you mean in the 2024 PHB then I’m fine with the ones presented in the UA. The rest I’m fine added via supplement. To be honest when making a character I hardly consider the non-PHB races. Have a hard time picking Teifling let alone others. Although I did want to play a Bugbear Drunken Master Monk/Hunter Ranger that talked like Bobcat Goldthwait, but, alas, my DM doesn’t allow multiclassing or furry/feathered PCs in his homebrew setting
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
The way I figure it, since orcs, goblins, and hobgoblins exist in pretty much every setting ever published for D&D, and since they’re of a suitable power level to build PCs with, it only makes sense. That’s what “core races/species” means to me, they exist everywhere.And those three I feel offer great “monstrous” counterparts to elves, dwarves, and gnomes in certain ways so it gives players a variety of things to choose from. The species that don’t really exist in every setting (dragonborn, tieflings, etc.) should be reserved for supplemental materials publcations.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It's worth asking whether things need to be mechanically different. Would it really be losing anything important if you said "Goblins: treat as Halflings"?
For me? Yeah.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Not a lot, no. But I'd be happier with a simple differentiator, like, "goblins: treat as halflings, but replace Brave with Quick."
You could put pretty much everything in the core rules that way. The only problem is, it'd be harder to sell more races when there's barely anything in a race. And that's a big problem indeed, when you're a business.
Plus players enjoy the wider spread of features available in the current setup. Hypothetically you could try streamlining and just making a few interchangeable traits, but I doubt they could pull it off without making the options fairly generic.
Or a few traits that completely outshine the others so they end up “must take” traits.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Haven’t scanned the 4 pages just 1&4 but here are my takes:
1) given what we’ve seen in the UAs it’s going to be pretty much an update of 2014 - same races reworked to account for Xanther &Tasha et Al most of the “unusual” species are already recovered in MotM so they are not making it into the new PHB. Given that they took back most of their early actually different takes like the UA2 ranger and replaced them with the c**p in the later UAs I’m not expecting anything very different. further adding all the other species would make the book way too big and expensive ( that’s why they did MotM) so that’s not going happen.
2) what would I personally consider the core races? (whether they make it not the 2024 PHB or not) For me that would be the humans, the Fey ( Eladrin, elves, fairies and goblinoids), the dwarves, gnomes, Hin, orcs, the Dragonborn, the outsiders (Genasai, teiflings, Aasimar) and some of the critter folk (tabaxi, thre krin, loxodonts) these have been around seemingly forever and have become more or less “core” in my mind.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I think they should have examples of races and then have a list of abilities to mix so that you can build whatever you want
You have a point. WOW says so.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
See? Precedent!!! 🤣😂🤣
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That would be cool, but next thing people will want classless, leveless systems where you can truly customize your character and make a good gish or something. It would be anarchy!!
In general RPG design terms that's an option, but it really doesn't work for when you're trying to design "races/species" because how exactly are we supposed to consider dwarves or orcs or halflings to be of a type when you can literally have an orc and a halfling with identical traits which are both completely different from what a corresponding member of what should be the same race has?
I could see maybe having a few choices within each race/species. Like Dwarves might have options between Stone Cunning and something else.
But the “build-a-bear” approach to races/species I don’t think would be a good idea. As I mentioned above it could lead to “must take” traits that leads to what The_Ace_of_Rogues mentions where you could end up with a Goliath and Halfling being virtually identical other than size (and maybe not even that!)
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
That one's unlikely to happen in D&D, whether or not it's a good idea. Class and species are pretty fundamental to the idea of "what makes D&D D&D".
They also make it easy to pick up and go for players new to the game, or RPGing. "You can be anything you want" is good for many purposes, but it's kind of intimidating. "You can be any of this list of things" is much easier, even if it's somewhat limiting on experienced players.
Can you really not make the creative leap that would explain why an orc might have Stout resistance rather than Powerful build. Why a Halfling might Surprise attack and not Lucky. Why an Elf Has Relentless Endurance but not the traditional elvish long life, trance and elvish weapon training?
It might not be “anarchy,” but it sure as shootin’ wouldn’t be D&D anymore. Besides, I’m pretty sure that game exists out there, if that’s what people wanna play, let ‘em go play that game instead.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting