5th edition race list on Enworld
@Trevor_WotC : "Is ??? #dnd race optional?" Yes, everything is. Specifically in the PHB, races beyond the core 4 races are called out as uncommon.
@ilinamorato : Dragonborn and Tiefling are PHB races in #DnD 5! Dat alphabetization tho. RT @Wizards_DnD pic.twitter.com/sfLOEIwUJU
@Trevor_WotC : It's alphabetical for common races, and then alphabetical for uncommon races.
Really dumb/sloppy with the two-tiered alphabetizing and no delineation.
First off, she doesn't have a beard. Fail.
Second off, dragonborn. Fail.
Thirdly, race rareity. Fail.
Forthusly, alphabet fail. Fail.
Fifthly, entire page with the only useful thing on it being a single word "Dwarf". Fail.
Sixthusilious, tiefling, really? Fail.
FFSAA wrote:
You do realize dragonborn were introduced in 3.5, right?
Do people really really really care about dwarf female beards?
Aren't you more upset (if you must be upset) about the whole "hobbitization" of halflings?
If there's anything to be upset about, it's Gnomes in the PHB. Someone had a "leaked PHB option" called Ragequit in the playtest forums. If ever I was going to exercise such an option, it would be because of Gnomes in the PHB. I mean, they were MONSTERS in 4E! They shouldn't be in the player's handbook. (This despite many people having a great love of playing Gnomes). I will rant and rail due to this deliberately personal slight by the developers at WoTC, even though, as DM I can ban them from my home campaign. (They are indeed extinct in my homebrew world). No, I say! The inclusion of Gnomes in the PHB is an affront to my sensibilities and I will not stand for it! (I'm sitting btw 
) You can rest assured that this will not be the last you hear from me on my distaste and utter loathing of Gnomes being in the PHB. What were they even thinking when they came to this game sundering conclusion!?
TL;DR - Death to Gnomes. But hey, if you like Gnomes, or Dragonborn, or Tieflings, more power to you and those that play with you. More options for everyone is good in my book. 
I like it. Like the art, but don't see the point in splitting the races though. In 1e only humans were common, dwarves uncommon, everyone else was rare apart from half orcs and half elves who would be very rare. Rarity was just to give you a clue about where to put them on a 2d10 wandering minster table. PCs don't reflect rarity in any event. Possibly it was done because the 4 races in basic were polished and formatted first so it was easier to tag the others on the end.
No kender.... and there was much rejoicing!
I have removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Comment button below the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Lord_Kyrion wrote:
Nausicaa wrote:
I'm for variety. I'd just advise DMs somewhere that automatically allowing every single race is by no means a requirement. That worlds should be built and populated to achieve a flavor so ban any you want and refluff any others you want.
I don't like Tieflings at all and I wouldn't ever allow them to be a race in the traditional sense. Though I could perhaps allow them as rare oddities from another world.
Most of the time I wouldn't allow dragonborn but I have a logical role for them in my current world so I will allow them. The background though is almost forced if you take a dragonborn.
I actually like warforged but only as a rare and exotic so they are not a "race" in the traditional sense. They are more akin to a wizard experiment gone awry that resulted in sentience.
I agree that if they were going to sort common and uncommon they should have had a section header or something in the contents page.
Speaking of Hobbit-ization: I notice halflings went from being about 4 feet tall in D&D 4e to 3 feet tall in DDN. Down from about 45 lbs. from 100 lbs. Taken from the PHB descriptions. Funny, I can't find a specific height listed for halflings in AD&D 2e PHB or the Complete Book of Gnomes & Halflings (not as I write this at least).
I like the idea of taller, heavier hobbits a bit better. I seem to recall one of the designers mentioning (somewhere) that they made this decision in 4e so that halflings would be less like 6 year old children and a bit more 'adventurous'. So, that's the description I plan on using for my PC halfling when we start playing DDN later on . Halflings have never been a favorite race of mine, so I wanted to given one a try for a change.
I prefer the hobbit look but I'm also very much a campaign to campaign guy when it comes to races. I've got five dwarven subraces and probably three or four elven ones. All very distinctive. So I'm not real worried about this kind of fluff. I wasn't in 4e either.
Nausicaa wrote:
Has anyone else noticed that all races that have appeared in a PH1 are represented? That's no accident. I think the same will be for classes. And as with Eladrin, some classes will be subsumed as class options (IE Warlord is renamed and becomes a Fighter build). Very cool.
Artifact wrote:
Lord_Kyrion wrote:
Goken100 wrote:
kalil wrote:
Nothing "introduced" in a splat book though is really significant. Everything under the sun and then some shows up in splat books. The fact that dragonborn and tieflings made the core books is significant.
So 4e gets the credit for introducing those races. As long as they don't remove what I like I could care less about the additions. I will always make many of my own anyway.
Emerikol. wrote:
Brock, why don't you consolidate all your mini-quotes into one reply-post?
...wait! Don't answer that! ~laughs~
kill_the_wiz_first wrote:
Luciender wrote:
So much Gnome hate. Gnome-lifer here since 1981.
I would bedazzle you, steal your stuff all before you were kissing a nearby tree you thought was an Elf maiden. Don't trip... youre shoelaces are tied together.
Never liked Gnomes or Halflings - they come off as midget sized elves, dwarves, and humans. Tinker gnomes? Dwarves at a forge, but crazier! Forest gnome? Illusions and animal talking are just the whole illusionist/druid elf thing. Halflings are renamed hobbits, who literally were just 'small humans' in tolkein's books.
Not sure how I feel about the unfortunate implications of a medical condition like dwarfism requiring its own separate races.
Do you know? I feel the next gnomes PCs will be a spellcaster version of Tyrion Lannister.
We can change the background of gnomes, but we need racial traits to play gnomes who weren´t only illusionist wizards, bards or rogues. Maybe it would be enough some racial trait could be replace with a racial feat.
Would be gnomes a good factotum (class from 3.5 Dugeonscape)?
About dragonborns... what if I want a super combo: half-dragon template, sorcerer class and prestige class dragon disciple?
Joe_the_Rat wrote:
I like the selection. I fear this 'hobbitization' however. I haven't seen any final halfing illusrations, but I remember some concept art from a year or so ago...Hated it.
I much preferred the 3e/4e human-like halflings. I also preferred the 4e gnome. I did think the tiefling was too 'devilish' in 4e, however.
It still seems odd to me that tieflings but not assimar/devas are a core race. I like them mainly because I like playinhg up the 'opposite sides of the same coin' thing.
PS: I also don't get the race hate...If you don't like it, don't use it. Period. I don't like Drow. Not even as monsters. So I never use them, or allow them as PC's without serious reflavoring. I don't want them left out of the game, though.
seti wrote: