Dwarves aren't cool anymore

[Jophiel]

Which pointy-eared person who gets misty step is that? The one that can teleport their allies into the fray instead of themselves, the one that gets to resist all damage when they move, the one that can freeze enemies in fear, or the one that has psychic resistance and can become proficient with any weapon?

The funny thing is that this probably just made us both feel more confident in our opinions about 5e races.

[LibraryOgre]

Mostly the experience with 4e and 3e and 1e, and my perception of decreasing difference across those editions. Since this is the game- and edition-agnostic section of the forum I feel this applies, and the discussion isn't just 5e.

I don't know if I'd go too far up that road... 1e wasn't exactly a bastion of mechanical diversity in race design.

Dwarf: Bonus against humanoids, bonus v. magic, bonus v. poison, infravision, mining skills.
Gnome: Bonus against humanoids, bonus v. magic, infravision, mining skills
Halfling: Bonus with slings, bonus v. magic, bonus v. poison, stealth, some have infravision and mining skills
Elf: Bonus with swords and bows, charm resistance, stealth, infravision, secret doors.
Half-elf: Charm resistance, infravision, secret doors.

It's like they had 8 traits and said "Ok, these get A, B, C, D, those get D, E, F, and A, and these get just E, F."

Or, as I put it, "three different kinds of short and stout, two kinds of short and skinny."

[Psyren]

I don't know if I'd go too far up that road... 1e wasn't exactly a bastion of mechanical diversity in race design.

Dwarf: Bonus against humanoids, bonus v. magic, bonus v. poison, infravision, mining skills.
Gnome: Bonus against humanoids, bonus v. magic, infravision, mining skills
Halfling: Bonus with slings, bonus v. magic, bonus v. poison, stealth, some have infravision and mining skills
Elf: Bonus with swords and bows, charm resistance, stealth, infravision, secret doors.
Half-elf: Charm resistance, infravision, secret doors.

It's like they had 8 traits and said "Ok, these get A, B, C, D, those get D, E, F, and A, and these get just E, F."

Or, as I put it, "three different kinds of short and stout, two kinds of short and skinny."

Hey, it's not like Tolkien gave them a lot to work with

(Well, for elves he did, but incorporating it would have probably wrecked the game balance...)

The funny thing is that this probably just made us both feel more confident in our opinions about 5e races.

The "pointy-eared races that can teleport" I described represent 4 choices out of 50+ races and counting, which a much wider array of abilities and features. You're free to feel confident about whatever you like

[Lemmy]

Meh... Having one or two SLA doesn't really make a race feel unique. Just "video-gamey".

IMO, in order to really feel unique, a race needs significant physiological differences from humans (and other races) that don't feel like it could be a feat or spell... And more importantly, those physiological differences (including psychological ones) should be reflected in their culture, behavior and lore...

Otherwise it's just a pointy-eared human with a rare spell.

[Mordar]

I don't know if I'd go too far up that road... 1e wasn't exactly a bastion of mechanical diversity in race design.

Dwarf: Bonus against humanoids, bonus v. magic, bonus v. poison, infravision, mining skills.
Gnome: Bonus against humanoids, bonus v. magic, infravision, mining skills
Halfling: Bonus with slings, bonus v. magic, bonus v. poison, stealth, some have infravision and mining skills
Elf: Bonus with swords and bows, charm resistance, stealth, infravision, secret doors.
Half-elf: Charm resistance, infravision, secret doors.

It's like they had 8 traits and said "Ok, these get A, B, C, D, those get D, E, F, and A, and these get just E, F."

Or, as I put it, "three different kinds of short and stout, two kinds of short and skinny."

Well, I think that misses the class/level restrictions, attributes (though they do have the penalty thing), and languages kind of count. For dwarves, the saves scale which is useful. You forgot the gnomes get to talk to animals.

Though not all good stuff, there were some real decision drivers there.

Meh... Having one or two SLA doesn't really make a race feel unique. Just "video-gamey".

IMO, in order to really feel unique, a race needs significant physiological differences from humans (and other races) that don't feel like it could be a feat or spell... And more importantly, those physiological differences (including psychological ones) should be reflected in their culture, behavior and lore...

Otherwise it's just a pointy-eared human with a rare spell.

Example? Because for D&D that sounds like it is just going to be "lore" or "fluff" without mechanical impact?

- M

[Lemmy]

Example? Because for D&D that sounds like it is just going to be "lore" or "fluff" without mechanical impact?

- M

What I mean is that just giving them super-powers doesn't make them feel like a fantasy race, it makes them feel like... I don't know, the X-men.

It's good to give a race a mechanical benefit (or disadvantage) to differentiate them and make them stick closer to whatever concept you have in mind... But if their culture behavior is basically "human, but can cast fireball twice a day", it feels bland.

Even "minor" physiological traits could (and would) have a huge impact on culture and behavior.

Imagine how different human society would be if we had darkvision, for example. Or extreme resistance/vulnerability to cold... Or if we were twice as large (or small) as we are.

Sadly, in D&D (especially 5e, in my admittedly limited experience with that edition) these things are most often treated as little more than minor bonuses and lesser game abilities, but rarely have any actual impact in how a race or society works...

I remember really enjoying Races of Eberron for 3.5 because it actually tried to give each race a culture and behavior that took their mechanical characteristics into consideration and tried to make sense.

[Jophiel]

The "pointy-eared races that can teleport" I described represent 4 choices out of 50+ races and counting, which a much wider array of abilities and features.

That's honestly part of the problem. WOTC needs to make them all mechanically identical from an attribute standpoint and tries to differentiate its race bloat with other minor things that are often barely thematic. Or shared so often that it's "which race that gets to cast Fire Bolt are we talking about?" The stuff you rattled off before didn't even make me think "Wow, that sounds just like a [race]" and if I wasn't already familiar with them mechanically wouldn't have pinged me to think "That sure sounds like some sort of shadowy elf guy..."

You could take "Gets to pick proficiency in a skill once a Long Rest" and call it Halfling Cleverness or Elfish Lore or Gnomish Ingenuity and, with what you'd guess from the racial archetypes, you'd still think "Yeah, that tracks". It's generic and doesn't feel "Githyanki", it's just a thing they tacked onto Githyanki.

You're free to feel confident about whatever you like

I was going to anyway but it's great that I finally have permission from people on the internet to have my own opinions.

[Psyren]

Even "minor" physiological traits could (and would) have a huge impact on culture and behavior.

Imagine how different human society would be if we had darkvision, for example. Or extreme resistance/vulnerability to cold... Or if we were twice as large (or small) as we are.

Sadly, in D&D (especially 5e, in my admittedly limited experience with that edition) these things are most often treated as little more than minor bonuses and lesser game abilities, but rarely have any actual impact in how a race or society works...

Sure, culture and behavior can be affected by physiology. But well before that, culture depends on setting, so those are the books where that should be - not core books like the PHB, unless your system is designed for a single setting, which D&D very notably isn't.

I remember really enjoying Races of Eberron for 3.5 because it actually tried to give each race a culture and behavior that took their mechanical characteristics into consideration and tried to make sense.

Yeah, I'm fine with an Eberron book taking racial physiology into account when building Eberron culture.

[Errorname]

IMO, in order to really feel unique, a race needs significant physiological differences from humans (and other races) that don't feel like it could be a feat or spell... And more importantly, those physiological differences (including psychological ones) should be reflected in their culture, behavior and lore...

Otherwise it's just a pointy-eared human with a rare spell.

Broadly agreed that if you are designing a setting these are good rules to follow, but for core D&D this is a ship that has sailed. D&D simply has too many races and too much overlap between those races to make this work, and you can't remove or merge those races, because people would revolt. D&D's ability to construct a setting will always be hampered by it's kitchen sink fantasy nature and the core rules being setting agnostic, and neither of those qualities are really negotiable.

[OldTrees1]

Broadly agreed that if you are designing a setting these are good rules to follow, but for core D&D this is a ship that has sailed. D&D simply has too many races and too much overlap between those races to make this work, and you can't remove or merge those races, because people would revolt. D&D's ability to construct a setting will always be hampered by it's kitchen sink fantasy nature and the core rules being setting agnostic, and neither of those qualities are really negotiable.

To be fair this is better/worse depends on the edition of D&D. The design constraints around species don't need to be as restrictive as 5E chose to be. 3E had many more playable species but was allowed to have physiological differences between them.

On the other hand, yeah some of the iconic species have a lot of overlap. There are ways to differentiate them still, but it does get harder. Halflings and Gnomes are different due to gnome's more magical nature, halfling's agility, and cultural features like tinkering or being favored by a luck goddess. They are a good example of your point about too much overlap without a way to fix it.

Back to the first hand, as you move away from the iconic core species, it becomes much easier to differentiate them if the edition permits differentiating them. Shadar Kai used to hide in plain sight (disappear right in front of you). Gith used to have a chance to ignore psionics (spell resistance instead of damage resistance).

I don't think the ship has sailed entirely. No major changes can happen in 5.5E, and some species will always have the problem. However 6E does not need to limit itself to the watered down 5E species. With a greater budget per species (and maybe higher level species?) it could solve most of the issue without a revolt.

[Lemmy]

Sure, culture and behavior can be affected by physiology. But well before that, culture depends on setting, so those are the books where that should be - not core books like the PHB, unless your system is designed for a single setting, which D&D very notably isn't.

However, even in setting neutral books, you can add mechanical abilities that at least feel indicative of what a race's supposed to be like, rather than generic powers that could fit any single race by simply changing their name...

As Jophiel put it:

You could take "Gets to pick proficiency in a skill once a Long Rest" and call it Halfling Cleverness or Elfish Lore or Gnomish Ingenuity and, with what you'd guess from the racial archetypes, you'd still think "Yeah, that tracks". It's generic and doesn't feel "Githyanki", it's just a thing they tacked onto Githyanki.

Too often (especially in D&D, even more so in 5e) race-related mechanics don't really evoke a race or culture... Just a build.

It's okay to have a few generic abilities. A race doesn't have to be 100% alien to feel unique... But if they're going to give a race 5+ abilities, at least 2 of them should be really evocative of what the race's identity in effect (not just name) and not feel like it'd be just as fitting for any other race if it had a different name. Hopefully make them useful and fun too.

D&D being a "everything and the kitchen sink" kind of deal already makes it hard enough to make anything feel unique... So at very least, they should try to make at least a couple of each race's mechanics be peculiar and interesting, instead of "+2 to a [X] skill" or "random SLA".

[Witty Username]

Dwarves should get con save proficiency, and con save expertise if they pick a class that already gives it. That would cover alot of hardiness in a thematic way, drink and drink and drink some more or shrug off the concussion after being knocked through a wall. And another species doesn't focus on that end.
Concentration also suggests focus, like flow states and hyper fixations which ties into the more patient aspects of mining and engineering.

[OldTrees1]

Dwarves should get con save proficiency, and con save expertise if they pick a class that already gives it. That would cover alot of hardiness in a thematic way, drink and drink and drink some more or shrug off the concussion after being knocked through a wall. And another species doesn't focus on that end.
Concentration also suggests focus, like flow states and hyper fixations which ties into the more patient aspects of mining and engineering.

Good point that is a better way to reflect Dwarf's overall fortitude rather than only talking about poison.

Here is a possible summary of Dwarf incorporating some of the ideas in this thread.

Dwarf:

Darkvision 60ft

Pick 2. The 3rd can be obtained instead of an ASI (including the 1st level floating +2 ASI)
Dwarven Fortitude: Dwarves are proficient in Con saves. If they would gain proficiency in Con saves another way, instead they gain expertise in Con saves, which means their proficiency bonus is doubled for Con saves.
Dwarven Hardiness: If a Dwarf would take Bludgeoning, piercing, and/or slashing damage, that damage is reduced by their proficiency bonus.
Stonecunning: As an Action, a Dwarf can listen to the stone to gain Tremorsense 10ft for 1 round.*

This has Dwarf remain a demihuman but differentiating from human by drawing on their lore connections to earth & stone to be a hardy resilient humanoid that has insights into their rocky world.

* Sidenote Dwarven tremorsense is not new. They had this option in 3E. Although in 3E it cost a move action, had a 20ft radius and showed direction instead of pinpointing locations/

[Psyren]

Broadly agreed that if you are designing a setting these are good rules to follow, but for core D&D this is a ship that has sailed. D&D simply has too many races and too much overlap between those races to make this work, and you can't remove or merge those races, because people would revolt. D&D's ability to construct a setting will always be hampered by it's kitchen sink fantasy nature and the core rules being setting agnostic, and neither of those qualities are really negotiable.

They have/sell more settings than any other TTRPG and are continuing to revive old ones from their back catalogue; I'm not seeing what's been "hampered."

However, even in setting neutral books, you can add mechanical abilities that at least feel indicative of what a race's supposed to be like, rather than generic powers that could fit any single race by simply changing their name...

As Jophiel put it:



Too often (especially in D&D, even more so in 5e) race-related mechanics don't really evoke a race or culture... Just a build.

Jophiel's point continues to be nonsensical. When a game has 50+ races already with even more to come, and the design space of racial features is "a small collection of abilities that are appropriate for a level 1 character", then yes, you're going to have some degree of overlap among small pockets of them. But 4-6 races out of 50+ having some form of misty step or 4-6 out of 50+ having some manner of floating proficiencies they can swap out each day is still considerable variation, because that means there are still 40+ species that don't have those things. Expecting every single species to be totally mechanically distinct from every single other species across every single one of their features in a game with this many is frankly ludicrous.

It's okay to have a few generic abilities. A race doesn't have to be 100% alien to feel unique... But if they're going to give a race 5+ abilities, at least 2 of them should be really evocative of what the race's identity in effect (not just name) and not feel like it'd be just as fitting for any other race if it had a different name. Hopefully make them useful and fun too.

There is plenty of uniqueness among the modern power sets and even within the overlapping powers. Githyanki might have a similar astral knowledge feature to, say, Astral Elves (and given that they share a habitat, some commonality is reasonable), but only the latter lets you stay conscious and keep watch over the party the entire time you're learning your new weapon/skill/tool. But if I ran into a nautiloid full of mindflayers out there I'd probably rather be the former.

D&D being a "everything and the kitchen sink" kind of deal already makes it hard enough to make anything feel unique... So at very least, they should try to make at least a couple of each race's mechanics be peculiar and interesting, instead of "+2 to a [X] skill" or "random SLA".

Yeah, if only there were only one race that could squeeze their entire body through a 1-inch keyhole, or only one race that could change their appearance at will, or only one race that walks around in splint mail even while naked, or only race that got a rogue's Cunning Action on every class, or only two races with an extra pair of arms, or... only one race that gets tremorsense, which is what started this whole tangent.

There are in fact plenty of the "peculiar and interesting" racial mechanics you describe. But as mentioned above, the real source of uniqueness between species is the combination of the features they get - not expecting each and every feature on each and every one of the 50+ to be unique.

[Jophiel]

Jophiel's point continues to be nonsensical.

Well, "nonsense" that multiple people see the sense in but anyway...

When a game has 50+ races already with even more to come, and the design space of racial features is "a small collection of abilities that are appropriate for a level 1 character", then yes, you're going to have some degree of overlap among small pockets of them.

It's almost as though it's been pointed out that WOTC flooding the field with a bajillion races into one big slurry is a major part of the issue with making any of them actually distinctive.

But 4-6 races out of 50+ having some form of misty step or 4-6 out of 50+ having some manner of floating proficiencies they can swap out each day is still considerable variation, because that means there are still 40+ species that don't have those things.

They also can't turn into elm trees or shoot potatoes out of their eyes but so what? The question isn't "What can't some other people do?", it's "What can this race do that's unique and flavorful and sets this race part?" If your answer is shared by another half-dozen disparate races, it's not actually an answer.

You're not going to make some subdivision of elf distinctive and interesting (a) with an ability that's not remotely unique, being both shared with other races but also shared with all races via common spells and feats, and (b) when "Elf" isn't distinctive in the game to start with.

Expecting every single species to be totally mechanically distinct from every single other species across every single one of their features in a game with this many is frankly ludicrous

Saying it's "expected" is a straw man. No one expects that. Instead, it's 100% expected that WOTC's races would largely blend into a homogeneous slurry when you have 50+ (and more on the way!). Likely no one is going to make that many races distinctive or stand on their own and WOTC's design space simply doesn't allow for distinct races since they have decided not to use many possible limiters/benefits that would make them distinctive but instead rely on 2-3 abilities out of a limited bag of mechanical tokens (not coincidentally, much like many M:tG cards all start to look the same aside from a couple stand-outs each season).

"Nonsensical" is looking at WOTC's pile of Build-a-Bear species and insisting that the Red/Blue/Green one is totally different from the Red/Blue/Yellow one (and from the Red/Yellow/Green one).

[Errorname]

I don't think the ship has sailed entirely. No major changes can happen in 5.5E, and some species will always have the problem. However 6E does not need to limit itself to the watered down 5E species. With a greater budget per species (and maybe higher level species?) it could solve most of the issue without a revolt.

I don't think there's any core species that are really negotiable at this point, you can add new ones but I don't think there's any that people would accept getting demoted out of core

They have/sell more settings than any other TTRPG and are continuing to revive old ones from their back catalogue; I'm not seeing what's been "hampered."

Quality, or perhaps more accurately the things that I think make for a quality setting, this is admittedly a very subjective matter.

Jophiel's point continues to be nonsensical. When a game has 50+ races already with even more to come, and the design space of racial features is "a small collection of abilities that are appropriate for a level 1 character", then yes, you're going to have some degree of overlap among small pockets of them. But 4-6 races out of 50+ having some form of misty step or 4-6 out of 50+ having some manner of floating proficiencies they can swap out each day is still considerable variation, because that means there are still 40+ species that don't have those things. Expecting every single species to be totally mechanically distinct from every single other species across every single one of their features in a game with this many is frankly ludicrous.

I think anyone making the argument that D&D species are kind of samey and one-note would also say that D&D has too many of them.

[Psyren]

Dwarves should get con save proficiency, and con save expertise if they pick a class that already gives it. That would cover alot of hardiness in a thematic way, drink and drink and drink some more or shrug off the concussion after being knocked through a wall. And another species doesn't focus on that end.
Concentration also suggests focus, like flow states and hyper fixations which ties into the more patient aspects of mining and engineering.

This illustrates my point about racial design space. Is expertise in a key saving throw, perhaps even the most key saving throw in the game once you consider concentration, reasonable for a racial ability? Is there any other ability in the game that gives this, and what level is it available at? Especially when you consider that that's just one racial among several that the game really needs them to have, like darkvision and tools? Because I would argue that suggestion is too strong to be a racial, much less one among several.

As far as dwarves being strong drinkers, they already have that - given that alcohol is functionally poison (alcohol poisoning is right in the name), their advantage should apply to it if and when a saving throw is required.

It's almost as though it's been pointed out that WOTC flooding the field with a bajillion races into one big slurry is a major part of the issue with making any of them actually distinctive.

3.5 had twice as many. If your cunning business strategy is for WotC to leave 3/4 their IP to wither on the shelf... that seems like a tough sell.

They also can't turn into elm trees or shoot potatoes out of their eyes but so what? The question isn't "What can't some other people do?", it's "What can this race do that's unique and flavorful and sets this race part?" If your answer is shared by another half-dozen disparate races, it's not actually an answer.

You're not going to make some subdivision of elf distinctive and interesting (a) with an ability that's not remotely unique, being both shared with other races but also shared with all races via common spells and feats, and (b) when "Elf" isn't distinctive in the game to start with.

So the question is what can this race do that's unique, but not what can this race do that others can't? ...What?

Saying it's "expected" is a straw man. No one expects that. Instead, it's 100% expected that WOTC's races would largely blend into a homogeneous slurry when you have 50+ (and more on the way!). Likely no one is going to make that many races distinctive or stand on their own and WOTC's design space simply doesn't allow for distinct races since they have decided not to use many possible limiters/benefits that would make them distinctive but instead rely on 2-3 abilities out of a limited bag of mechanical tokens (not coincidentally, much like many M:tG cards all start to look the same aside from a couple stand-outs each season).

"Nonsensical" is looking at WOTC's pile of Build-a-Bear species and insisting that the Red/Blue/Green one is totally different from the Red/Blue/Yellow one (and from the Red/Yellow/Green one).

That you aren't interested in thinking of any fun/distinctive/unique character or build concepts that use these races doesn't mean nobody else is. I'm quite happy there are more on the way; in fact I'm excited for when they take another swing at the Ardling or when they take another look at 3.5 races like the Neraphim, Illumians, Dvati, Elans, Blues, Killoren Avariels, Janni etc.

[Mordar]

3.5 had twice as many. If your cunning business strategy is for WotC to leave 3/4 their IP to wither on the shelf... that seems like a tough sell.

I think that's actually pretty common...companies leave material on the cutting room floor all the time. And then they get to make it again later, if they want, or license it elsewhere, or just let it fade. Just like why monster cereals used to be available all the time, not just at Halloween. Or why you can't find the Hostess full sized 3-variety donut boxes. Or Dark Tower.

- M

[Jophiel]

3.5 had twice as many.

So what? For one thing, 3.5 had more means of distinction than 5e allows. For another, I never pointed to 3.5e as a paragon of great game race design. As for "cunning business strategy", I absolutely agree that making things bland and homogeneous is a typical way to go for the most commercial sales even if I don't like it as a design choice. I wouldn't except Hasbro to pick anything other than the path of least resistance to selling books.

I don't even think they're wrong for doing it or would deny their success. I just find it weird that someone would deny that this is the case.

So the question is what can this race do that's unique, but not what can this race do that others can't? ...What?

"This race gets to do a thing that another 10-15% of races can do but the other 85% CAN'T do, so it's unique!" isn't a winning argument, even if they also gets other generic traits (that are shared by a different 10-15%...).

That you aren't interested in thinking of any fun/distinctive/unique character or build concepts that use these races

I have no problem making fun and flavorful characters. That's despite WOTC's milquetoast approach to races though, not something supported and encouraged by it.

[Errorname]

3.5 had twice as many. If your cunning business strategy is for WotC to leave 3/4 their IP to wither on the shelf... that seems like a tough sell.

Yes, it would be, both for WotC and the fans. There are many things that are good design and writing principles that aren't really possible for D&D to do retroactively.

[Psyren]

I just find it weird that someone would deny that this is the case.

Why? If you think I'm ever going to agree that "5 races out of 50 have X feature in common, therefore everything is bland and homogenous" - I wouldn't hold my breath.

I think that's actually pretty common...companies leave material on the cutting room floor all the time. And then they get to make it again later, if they want, or license it elsewhere, or just let it fade. Just like why monster cereals used to be available all the time, not just at Halloween. Or why you can't find the Hostess full sized 3-variety donut boxes. Or Dark Tower.

- M

Right, which they already did. To reiterate, 5e has already reduced the 3.5 race output by at least half (and honestly, it's closer to 75%, 3.5 had a PROLIFIC release schedule.) But even that is still too many options for some people; all I'm saying is that expecting them to take even more of a hatchet to their IP when that's one of their biggest market differentiators over other publishers is neither a reasonable nor sensible expectation.

We're going to get more races over the next 10 years. But even if they released 5 per year every year for the next decade, we'd still be behind prior editions.

Yes, it would be, both for WotC and the fans. There are many things that are good design and writing principles that aren't really possible for D&D to do retroactively.

There are plenty of things that are bad design and writing principles that they shouldn't be trying to perpetuate, either.

[Witty Username]

They have/sell more settings than any other TTRPG and are continuing to revive old ones from their back catalogue; I'm not seeing what's been "hampered."

There is a criticism that the actual settings have blended together some. Even if that is partially due to table culture (no your not playing a Drow or Orc in Dragonlance, save that character for Tucker's Eberron game, well your a bad DM and should feel bad for stiffling my creativity).

That and we have what, FR, Eberron, Dragonlance and Spelljammer. Oh and Ravenloft. Spelljammer got reconed to just be the Astral plane, and has little in common with the original setting as far as I can tell.

Ravenloft was always kinda a crossover setting, although I don't recall any non upper three from the setting book. Or any of the AD&D personallies beyond Straid and that one Lich.

Which leaves us with 3?

[OldTrees1]

I don't think there's any core species that are really negotiable at this point, you can add new ones but I don't think there's any that people would accept getting demoted out of core

I mostly* agree although that is a nonsequitor to the part of my post you quoted, so I should clarify. I think the 5E version of species are watered down versions of those species (core, secondary, and "monstrous" species to different degrees). 5.5E's power budget per species is not going to differ much from 5E, but in 6E they could raise the power budget per species and thus add flavorful abilities that they just won't in 5E/5.5E.


*They could remove half elf and half orc, and promote orc to the PHB. I expect they will eventually do that. That might be a small enough difference that enough people would accept it. Which means you are essentially correct about the same core species continuing to be in the PHB.

I think anyone making the argument that D&D species are kind of samey and one-note would also say that D&D has too many of them.

Quick interjection:
If the 5E rules for species design were less restrictive, then 5E could have more species and be less samey than it is today. 3E is an example with an order of magnitude more species but it was less samey that 5E. There is a green dragon PC in the campaign I am running.

So I do think 5E's species tend to be kind of samey and has too many species given its inflexibility with species, however I would prefer D&D have more species and simultaneously have them be less samey.

Edit: Forum is really slow. Please pardon typos and errors. It took 10min to fix as -> has.

[Mordar]

Right, which they already did. To reiterate, 5e has already reduced the 3.5 race output by at least half (and honestly, it's closer to 75%, 3.5 had a PROLIFIC release schedule.) But even that is still too many options for some people; all I'm saying is that expecting them to take even more of a hatchet to their IP when that's one of their biggest market differentiators over other publishers is neither a reasonable nor sensible expectation.

If you will indulge me further, am I correct in understanding that 5e released with 9 races, and the other 84 have "dripped" in over the last 8 years? That seems pretty normal, for them anyway. So WotC clearly didn't have a problem with cutting from XXX down to 9 to restart, so it would seem they didn't feel anything was withering on the vine. They have now re-flooded the field with choices, and will absolutely continue to do so, especially with co-branded properties, right?

I suppose you're right that Plasmoid (as a playable RPG race) is IP, but trimming races isn't really hatchet-jobbing your IP when you have 84 of them and race accounts for what tiny fraction of the D&D 5e product which accounts for what fraction of the whole D&D IP? So it is incredibly unlikely to harm their business by trimming. However, it is probably equally unlikely that doing so will improve their business.

So I guess this comes down to the idea that for some products, a surfeit of options doesn't hurt sales, and there is room for sweaters that are blue, or turquoise, or lapis, or cerulean.

I just wish that my cerulean felt more distinct from lapis, sometimes.

- M

[Psyren]

If you will indulge me further, am I correct in understanding that 5e released with 9 races, and the other 84 have "dripped" in over the last 8 years?

No (where did you get 84 / 93 from? Even double-counting the Legacy races and throwing in the third-party ones I'm not seeing that.)

There is a criticism that the actual settings have blended together some. Even if that is partially due to table culture (no your not playing a Drow or Orc in Dragonlance, save that character for Tucker's Eberron game, well your a bad DM and should feel bad for stiffling my creativity).

Putting aside that these are both bad examples as they do show up in the novels (Raistlin fights drow in his test and knows what they are, and there's a half-orc in Kendermore) - no, of course you're not a bad DM for saying no orcs and drow in your Dragonlance game. But a DM who chooses to allow them isn't being a bad DM either. All WotC is doing is saying "hey DM, it could actually work if you wanted it to, here's how." (Gestures towards high-magic empires like Istar pulling interlopers in from other settings pre-Cataclysm.)

That and we have what, FR, Eberron, Dragonlance and Spelljammer. Oh and Ravenloft. Spelljammer got reconed to just be the Astral plane, and has little in common with the original setting as far as I can tell.

Ravenloft was always kinda a crossover setting, although I don't recall any non upper three from the setting book. Or any of the AD&D personallies beyond Straid and that one Lich.

Which leaves us with 3?

Planescape has a book as well, and Greyhawk, Mystara and Athas all got name-checked in core, so they still exist too. No sign of Al-Qadim and Rokugan yet, though they might just fold the latter into their Kamigawa or something.

[icefractal]

I suppose you're right that Plasmoid (as a playable RPG race) is IP, but trimming races isn't really hatchet-jobbing your IP when you have 84 of them and race accounts for what tiny fraction of the D&D 5e product which accounts for what fraction of the whole D&D IP?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but if the problem is 5E races not feeling distinct enough, then why even consider cutting Plasmoid? Isn't it one of the most distinctive ones?

[Mordar]

No (where did you get 84 / 93 from? Even double-counting the Legacy races and throwing in the third-party ones I'm not seeing that.)

Counting on the dndbeyond.com/races page. 9 from "Player's Handbook / Basic Rules" and 84 from all of the books named below it. I assume (please correct if mistaken) that those that are tagged "Legacy" are from previous editions, but presumably have 5e rules and were thus converted and count. Unlike the core 9 I cannot see the special rules for these, having not purchased the referenced books.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but if the problem is 5E races not feeling distinct enough, then why even consider cutting Plasmoid? Isn't it one of the most distinctive ones?

That was a total random grab based on one of the non-standard races I could think of at that moment. I even mentioned above that I would be more likely to consider it above any of the other..."unusual" races because it is reminiscent of the Dralasites from my gaming past.

- M

[Psyren]

Counting on the dndbeyond.com/races page. 9 from "Player's Handbook / Basic Rules" and 84 from all of the books named below it. I assume (please correct if mistaken) that those that are tagged "Legacy" are from previous editions, but presumably have 5e rules and were thus converted and count. Unlike the core 9 I cannot see the special rules for these, having not purchased the referenced books.

They're reprints, so you'd be double-counting. In addition, there are multiple 3rd-party races on that page, not all of them are WotC.

[Witty Username]

Raistlin fights drow in his test and knows what they are

Which book is at, legitimately curious since the only dark elf I recall being Dalinar which is in line with my recollection.
Dark Elves exist, Drow do not was my understanding. Dark elves being not a different species but a term for exiles.

I am only passingly familiar with Raslins tests, the only bit I remember is when he killed his brother Caramon during the test.

[Errorname]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but if the problem is 5E races not feeling distinct enough, then why even consider cutting Plasmoid? Isn't it one of the most distinctive ones?

From a perspective of worldbuilding cohesiveness, I think it makes sense enough. Making species internally diverse and integrating them well into the larger setting takes work, so picking a small number of species that you then give extensive development to is something that (I think) tends to produce better results than going broad on a bunch of very simple species concepts. That said, this is an idea that would obviously clash with the kitchen sink appeal of a lot of D&D.