TCoE's attempts at removing inherent racism from the game effected the book's artwork. Gnolls are shown as the enemies in three images(Armorer, Tasha's mind whip, and magic chicken). This was likely done because most other humanoid enemies are playable races that are somewhat independent in the lore of 5e's favorite world, Toril(despite the fact that at least one of those images is almost definitely set in another material plane). Because of that alienation, I do not believe that gnolls are likely to become a playable race. Please post any evidence that Wizards will finally give up on making gnolls demons.
Compare how some eladrin are "fey (elf)" lacking freewill, while other eladrin are "humanoid (elf)" possessing freewill.
Likewise it seems possible for some gnolls to be "fiend (demon, gnoll)" lacking freewill, while other gnolls are "humanoid (gnoll)" possessing freewill.
Meanwhile, the custom lineage already makes a playable gnoll 5e-legal.
Until a more exact feat becomes officially available for the gnoll custom lineage, there are official feats that can already work as approximations.
Here is a Custom Lineage for a playable gnoll that reflavors the official feat, Tavern Brawler, and is legal.
GNOLL Medium humanoid (gnoll, beast, hyena, fiend, demon)
+1 Strength or Constitution score. Crushing Bite. Melee unarmed strike. 1d4 + Strength bludgeoning damage (or improvised piercing damage). Lockjaw. If your bite hits, you can use your bonus action to try grapple. Typically you bite the throat of your prey and lock on until your prey is dead. Carcass Weaponry. Melee or ranged weapon attack. 1d4 + Strength bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage. Gnolls often use the bones and other bodyparts of slain corpses as effective improvised weapons.
I think that's because in 5E they are far closer to demon spawn then actual rates. In the chaotic evil alignment leaves them little ability to form communities beyond hunting packs or warring troops. So I don't think they were intended to be playable. As you said, almost every other race has a race description.
I do think its curious that hyena-people are the one type of demon-people that can't be playable PC types, at least officially. Tieflings, drow (unseilee fae, basically), were-critters (Eberron's shifters), orcs and giants and goblins (oh my), Duergar (half-mind flayers), evil dragon(born)s and djinn (genasi), etc. We don't have any playable undead race, but we have several undead classes, and I'd argue that being undead is more of a state of being than a race... Anyways!
Why are gnolls a step too far, out of all things?
------
Anyways, as for gnoll stat blocks... their monster ability is just "rampage" - more movement and a bite attack as a bonus action. In short, they're Berserkers that happen to bite. Which, in all honesty, I really find bad- not only is it redundant with certain class choices, but its really only usable for for a very tiny amount of classes. Its a melee option, so a caster will generally not use it. Bites are STR based, and rangers, rogues and monks are primarily DEX; possible but really awkward and forced for rangers. That leaves fighters, barbarians and paladins, assuming that you don't have too much competition for your bonus action.
A single racial ability that only works with tank classes, and only with certain builds, is a bad ability. There's really not much salvageable imho. Going to need to rebuild from ground up.
Anyways, as for gnoll stat blocks... their monster ability is just "rampage" - more movement and a bite attack as a bonus action. In short, they're Berserkers that happen to bite. Which, in all honesty, I really find bad- not only is it redundant with certain class choices, but its really only usable for for a very tiny amount of classes. Its a melee option, so a caster will generally not use it. Bites are STR based, and rangers, rogues and monks are primarily DEX; possible but really awkward and forced for rangers. That leaves fighters, barbarians and paladins, assuming that you don't have too much competition for your bonus action.
I was thinking more about getting the darkvision, languages and stat modifiers from the stat block, rather than only their combat ability. I would probably grant the Bite attack as an option for improved damage from an unarmed attack.
They are humanoids, so don't have any other special abilities. Even a Gnoll Flesh Gnawer only has slightly improved ability scores and the equivalent of extra attack.
Rampage seems more like a class ability rather than a racial one.
I said the exact same thing about goblins and their monster abilities - they basically have Cunning Action - and yet, its a racial trait. Orcs and their ability to run more towards enemies? A variation of how Barbarians fight. Yet, we have a revised version as a racial trait.
If all you're taking is darkvision, stats and language... Basically, that's half-orcs without the cool extra features.
I do think its curious that hyena-people are the one type of demon-people that can't be playable PC types, at least officially. Tieflings, drow (unseilee fae, basically), were-critters (Eberron's shifters), orcs and giants and goblins (oh my), Duergar (half-mind flayers), evil dragon(born)s and djinn (genasi), etc. We don't have any playable undead race, but we have several undead classes, and I'd argue that being undead is more of a state of being than a race... Anyways!
Why are gnolls a step too far, out of all things?
Are they though? Honestly, I don't know that they would be, or that Tasha's really makes it more likely that they are.
They've never been a core race and they don't feature prominently in any of the settings, so they wouldn't get picked for those books. They could have been in Volo's, but all the races in there seem at least as worthwhile and they're not goblinoids. The EEPC has three - in my opinion - more iconic race options. Mordenkainen's could have been possible, but went for planar content instead with the Gith - also a very reasonable choice Gnolls wouldn't have been bad for any of these, but I can definitely see why others got the nod instead.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I mentioned this in another thread talking about Gnolls as a playable race, but I'm of the opinion that WotC deliberately made the gnolls unsympathetic so that there can be at least one humanoid race that players can slaughter on sight without any moral quandaries.
For decades goblins and orcs filled that role... usually characterized as unsympathetic monsters that delight in torturing and abusing others. But then we got stuff like the Warcraft series and slowly the green monsters became misunderstood people surviving against all odds in a world that hates them. They're sympathetic now, and often are treated like an oppressed minority in stories. Having a group of adventurers kick down the door to an old fort and kill every goblin they see no longer feels triumphant... it feels kind of guilty.
So you need something that is clever enough to set traps, build forts, or use tools and weaponry, but you don't want there to be a long debate before every encounter where the Bard tries to convince the Rogue to at least attempt to negotiate with them first... so they landed on Gnolls. They're humanoid, but still largely monstrous with no direct real-world analogue. Make sure that their backstory clearly states that they are completely devoid of empathy, and that there's no reason to ever give them the opportunity to harm others.
Obviously, it's not working quite that well, since we're having this discussion. But I'm confident that was the goal with how and why Gnolls are presented the way they are in 5e. I can't say I'm exactly a fan... I honestly think it makes them less interesting. But I can understand why WotC would want at least one Monster race that doesn't have quite as much baggage as the others for something like this.
Yea, this is where the DM world building is a must. There must be a challenge for the players built into the background of the world. Any race can be made/portrayed as evil. Even Elf can be set up to replace the old kill on sight monsters of old. The Gnolls (as any race) should be fleshed out enough for the DM to place them in their world where they want/need them. As warriors of light / common people / as dedicated monsters.
Heh, this started as a satire on celebrity causes (save the hyenas!), but you can tell Bryan Hawn loves this hyena. And is dangerously close to pet and hug the hyena.
I don't think Tasha's Cauldron did anything to change the status of gnolls regarding whether or not they'll ever become playable.
I think the important thing Halfast mentioned is that the art in the book makes it clear that WotC have started using Gnolls as the generic monster that are shown being beaten up in official art. Some of us are taking that to assume that they'll be left out as a player race, partly to avoid subjecting them to the race-neutral new rules they've started using in the spirit of inclusiveness.
I feel like we won't get a Gnoll race anytime soon unless we get a second official Eberron book. (which I really want) The Forgotten Realms seems to despise the demon-hyena-people.
There is no way, no way at all, if one actually reads the source documentation, especially Volo's, that Gnoll's can be construed as anything but a Chaotic Evil marauder. They are not, nor ever shall be, anything but a monster. And please don't say "but Eberron....".
Eberron is some weird steampunk offshoot of D&D. That is why much of it is completely incompatible with true D&D. Artificers don't work in a classic D&D setting. Neither does "but these monsters are actually nice in Eberron, therefore that must be the case in true D&D".
Volo's is a retcon from previous editions. Gnolls were playable in 2nd and 3rd Editions and some people would appreciate having them back. Especially since the lore in Volo's regarding gnolls is often viewed as lackluster.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I don't think Tasha's Cauldron did anything to change the status of gnolls regarding whether or not they'll ever become playable.
I think the important thing Halfast mentioned is that the art in the book makes it clear that WotC have started using Gnolls as the generic monster that are shown being beaten up in official art. Some of us are taking that to assume that they'll be left out as a player race, partly to avoid subjecting them to the race-neutral new rules they've started using in the spirit of inclusiveness.
Meh, we had tons of artwork depicting drow, orcs, and goblins as generic enemies being beaten in D&D and that didn't stop them from becoming PC races.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Not really a dog or hyena in this debate, but AFAIK Gnolls are the only race among classic and "former monster" races that consumes humanoid flesh in core product lore.
I think another way to put what the OP I think is getting at is that with other "monstrous" humanoids now becoming playable PC races, their design and stated lore takes the "monstrosity" out of them (retained in the MM because they can be "adversarial" but no longer essentially monstrous). Gnolls, with the sentient flesh eating penchant, at least in 5e seem to not be granted that by the mainstream designers. That's not to say a designer couldn't, and while I think they're overpowered as a PC race (I also think Tortles are a bit overpowered as a PC race), I think Gvaryi has made a good effort in that direction, though it's simply a custom lineage skinning "brawling" as "biting". You can call it a gnoll, but custom lineage is not "how to make any race in D&D playable", but that's a debate over what custom lineage is. I mean we've had "not all Mindflayers" even in 2e, so why not with Gnolls?
I imagine there could be a shift, if someone takes the Gnolls as something like the Magog in Andromeda (what I think of when I think of Gnolls). You basically need a Drizzt type Gnoll to show how a Gnoll could be a empathic and empathetic figure in some lore, and then the civilization is retconned.
I'm interested by the post that noted other than its bite attack, Gnolls distinguishing trait is its frenzy ... most analogous to Barbarian rage. Aside from inherent arcane magic (cantrips and the like), are there any races that basically come built with an actual class feature in the build?
I know there were cannibal halflings in Dark Sun, but we're presumably talking about Gnolls being a playable race in more mainstream D&D universes.
Y'know Lizardfolk do have their Hungry Jaws trait ... that may lead to something.
TCoE's attempts at removing inherent racism from the game effected the book's artwork. Gnolls are shown as the enemies in three images(Armorer, Tasha's mind whip, and magic chicken). This was likely done because most other humanoid enemies are playable races that are somewhat independent in the lore of 5e's favorite world, Toril(despite the fact that at least one of those images is almost definitely set in another material plane). Because of that alienation, I do not believe that gnolls are likely to become a playable race. Please post any evidence that Wizards will finally give up on making gnolls demons.
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
It can go both ways.
Compare how some eladrin are "fey (elf)" lacking freewill, while other eladrin are "humanoid (elf)" possessing freewill.
Likewise it seems possible for some gnolls to be "fiend (demon, gnoll)" lacking freewill, while other gnolls are "humanoid (gnoll)" possessing freewill.
Meanwhile, the custom lineage already makes a playable gnoll 5e-legal.
Until a more exact feat becomes officially available for the gnoll custom lineage, there are official feats that can already work as approximations.
Here is a Custom Lineage for a playable gnoll that reflavors the official feat, Tavern Brawler, and is legal.
GNOLL
Medium humanoid (gnoll, beast, hyena, fiend, demon)
+2 Strength score.
Speed 30.
Darkvision.
Languages. Common, Abyssal (Gnoll dialect).
FERAL FEROCITY (Tavern Brawler feat)
+1 Strength or Constitution score.
Crushing Bite. Melee unarmed strike. 1d4 + Strength bludgeoning damage (or improvised piercing damage).
Lockjaw. If your bite hits, you can use your bonus action to try grapple. Typically you bite the throat of your prey and lock on until your prey is dead.
Carcass Weaponry. Melee or ranged weapon attack. 1d4 + Strength bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage. Gnolls often use the bones and other bodyparts of slain corpses as effective improvised weapons.
he / him
I think that's because in 5E they are far closer to demon spawn then actual rates. In the chaotic evil alignment leaves them little ability to form communities beyond hunting packs or warring troops. So I don't think they were intended to be playable. As you said, almost every other race has a race description.
Let me rephrase this... Any creature can be playable. Gnolls lack a proper race description to help fill out a character sheet.
It should be possible to use the stat block to work out what racial abilities a Gnoll will get.
I do think its curious that hyena-people are the one type of demon-people that can't be playable PC types, at least officially. Tieflings, drow (unseilee fae, basically), were-critters (Eberron's shifters), orcs and giants and goblins (oh my), Duergar (half-mind flayers), evil dragon(born)s and djinn (genasi), etc. We don't have any playable undead race, but we have several undead classes, and I'd argue that being undead is more of a state of being than a race... Anyways!
Why are gnolls a step too far, out of all things?
------
Anyways, as for gnoll stat blocks... their monster ability is just "rampage" - more movement and a bite attack as a bonus action. In short, they're Berserkers that happen to bite. Which, in all honesty, I really find bad- not only is it redundant with certain class choices, but its really only usable for for a very tiny amount of classes. Its a melee option, so a caster will generally not use it. Bites are STR based, and rangers, rogues and monks are primarily DEX; possible but really awkward and forced for rangers. That leaves fighters, barbarians and paladins, assuming that you don't have too much competition for your bonus action.
A single racial ability that only works with tank classes, and only with certain builds, is a bad ability. There's really not much salvageable imho. Going to need to rebuild from ground up.
I was thinking more about getting the darkvision, languages and stat modifiers from the stat block, rather than only their combat ability. I would probably grant the Bite attack as an option for improved damage from an unarmed attack.
They are humanoids, so don't have any other special abilities. Even a Gnoll Flesh Gnawer only has slightly improved ability scores and the equivalent of extra attack.
Rampage seems more like a class ability rather than a racial one.
I said the exact same thing about goblins and their monster abilities - they basically have Cunning Action - and yet, its a racial trait. Orcs and their ability to run more towards enemies? A variation of how Barbarians fight. Yet, we have a revised version as a racial trait.
If all you're taking is darkvision, stats and language... Basically, that's half-orcs without the cool extra features.
Are they though? Honestly, I don't know that they would be, or that Tasha's really makes it more likely that they are.
They've never been a core race and they don't feature prominently in any of the settings, so they wouldn't get picked for those books. They could have been in Volo's, but all the races in there seem at least as worthwhile and they're not goblinoids. The EEPC has three - in my opinion - more iconic race options. Mordenkainen's could have been possible, but went for planar content instead with the Gith - also a very reasonable choice Gnolls wouldn't have been bad for any of these, but I can definitely see why others got the nod instead.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I mentioned this in another thread talking about Gnolls as a playable race, but I'm of the opinion that WotC deliberately made the gnolls unsympathetic so that there can be at least one humanoid race that players can slaughter on sight without any moral quandaries.
For decades goblins and orcs filled that role... usually characterized as unsympathetic monsters that delight in torturing and abusing others. But then we got stuff like the Warcraft series and slowly the green monsters became misunderstood people surviving against all odds in a world that hates them. They're sympathetic now, and often are treated like an oppressed minority in stories. Having a group of adventurers kick down the door to an old fort and kill every goblin they see no longer feels triumphant... it feels kind of guilty.
So you need something that is clever enough to set traps, build forts, or use tools and weaponry, but you don't want there to be a long debate before every encounter where the Bard tries to convince the Rogue to at least attempt to negotiate with them first... so they landed on Gnolls. They're humanoid, but still largely monstrous with no direct real-world analogue. Make sure that their backstory clearly states that they are completely devoid of empathy, and that there's no reason to ever give them the opportunity to harm others.
Obviously, it's not working quite that well, since we're having this discussion. But I'm confident that was the goal with how and why Gnolls are presented the way they are in 5e. I can't say I'm exactly a fan... I honestly think it makes them less interesting. But I can understand why WotC would want at least one Monster race that doesn't have quite as much baggage as the others for something like this.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Yea, this is where the DM world building is a must. There must be a challenge for the players built into the background of the world. Any race can be made/portrayed as evil. Even Elf can be set up to replace the old kill on sight monsters of old. The Gnolls (as any race) should be fleshed out enough for the DM to place them in their world where they want/need them. As warriors of light / common people / as dedicated monsters.
In older editions before Gnolls went all demonspawn in the lore they were playable. I had a Gnoll PC back in 2e for example.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Heh, this started as a satire on celebrity causes (save the hyenas!), but you can tell Bryan Hawn loves this hyena. And is dangerously close to pet and hug the hyena.
he / him
I don't think Tasha's Cauldron did anything to change the status of gnolls regarding whether or not they'll ever become playable.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I think the important thing Halfast mentioned is that the art in the book makes it clear that WotC have started using Gnolls as the generic monster that are shown being beaten up in official art. Some of us are taking that to assume that they'll be left out as a player race, partly to avoid subjecting them to the race-neutral new rules they've started using in the spirit of inclusiveness.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
I feel like we won't get a Gnoll race anytime soon unless we get a second official Eberron book. (which I really want) The Forgotten Realms seems to despise the demon-hyena-people.
Here we go again.
There is no way, no way at all, if one actually reads the source documentation, especially Volo's, that Gnoll's can be construed as anything but a Chaotic Evil marauder. They are not, nor ever shall be, anything but a monster. And please don't say "but Eberron....".
Eberron is some weird steampunk offshoot of D&D. That is why much of it is completely incompatible with true D&D. Artificers don't work in a classic D&D setting. Neither does "but these monsters are actually nice in Eberron, therefore that must be the case in true D&D".
Volo's is a retcon from previous editions. Gnolls were playable in 2nd and 3rd Editions and some people would appreciate having them back. Especially since the lore in Volo's regarding gnolls is often viewed as lackluster.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Meh, we had tons of artwork depicting drow, orcs, and goblins as generic enemies being beaten in D&D and that didn't stop them from becoming PC races.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Not really a dog or hyena in this debate, but AFAIK Gnolls are the only race among classic and "former monster" races that consumes humanoid flesh in core product lore.
I think another way to put what the OP I think is getting at is that with other "monstrous" humanoids now becoming playable PC races, their design and stated lore takes the "monstrosity" out of them (retained in the MM because they can be "adversarial" but no longer essentially monstrous). Gnolls, with the sentient flesh eating penchant, at least in 5e seem to not be granted that by the mainstream designers. That's not to say a designer couldn't, and while I think they're overpowered as a PC race (I also think Tortles are a bit overpowered as a PC race), I think Gvaryi has made a good effort in that direction, though it's simply a custom lineage skinning "brawling" as "biting". You can call it a gnoll, but custom lineage is not "how to make any race in D&D playable", but that's a debate over what custom lineage is. I mean we've had "not all Mindflayers" even in 2e, so why not with Gnolls?
I imagine there could be a shift, if someone takes the Gnolls as something like the Magog in Andromeda (what I think of when I think of Gnolls). You basically need a Drizzt type Gnoll to show how a Gnoll could be a empathic and empathetic figure in some lore, and then the civilization is retconned.
I'm interested by the post that noted other than its bite attack, Gnolls distinguishing trait is its frenzy ... most analogous to Barbarian rage. Aside from inherent arcane magic (cantrips and the like), are there any races that basically come built with an actual class feature in the build?
I know there were cannibal halflings in Dark Sun, but we're presumably talking about Gnolls being a playable race in more mainstream D&D universes.
Y'know Lizardfolk do have their Hungry Jaws trait ... that may lead to something.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.