ohhhhhh awesome choices 
it includes everything I built into my campaign world 
No great surprise (Warforged is off the bottom, I guess). Compared to the page counts in the Basic PDF, it looks like the space for each race is around 50% bigger, so there may be lots of lovely artwork in there. 
Cool
Yaay for Dragonborn.
I hope my Warforged friends will make it in as well.
Glad to see the Gnome back too. I'd never play one in a million years (not that there's anything wrong with that!), but more choice is better.
Warforged is in the DMG, that was already announced.
Five pages for elves, wow. Of course it could just be the edge of the first and last page, but still 3 full pages seems like a lot of space, I wonder how many subraces.
So, pretty much everything from the 1st PHB of every edition of the game. Woot!
Karnos wrote:
Still bothers me: why a tiefling race and not a planetouched race with tiefling and aasimar subraces?
But it looks like a great selection nonetheless.
I really like the art for the start of the dwarf entry.
Lord_Kyrion wrote:
frothsof wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
Holy race options, Batman!
Even though we pretty much already knew this, it is still awesome to officially see it. I'm glad that Tieflings and Dragonborn are officially members of the band now.
Gnarl wrote:
frothsof wrote:
Love the art. The very idea of bearded female dwarves turns my stomach.
Half-elf and half-orc should be subraces of humans.
I hope we get shifters in DMG along with the warforged, Eberron is my favorite setting.
frothsof wrote:
frothsof wrote:
I don't know why I can't seem to like the art. It looks painted and smooth, which I like. Great use of light and shadow. The dwarfess conveys expression very well. I think the artist did a great job.It must be the armor. Something just seems off about the armor.... It is good art so maybe it will grow on me the more I look at it. It deffinitly has qualities worth appreciation.
I would have liked to see plane touched as the main race for tieflings, and I never liked half-elfs. I too think half-orcs and half-elves could have been rolled into the human group. It is all fine though, I am very happy to see a spoiler of the PHB.
Anyway, all very exciting.
Sigh. Such a tease, such a great art. I really like they kept the 4th edition character font, but they changed some of the artists. That Dwarf Female seems alive, and that fortress gate is so... classical.
Lord_Kyrion wrote:
I'm glad they included so many race options in the PHB.
Tieflings and Aasimar are very different beings. Just because they're both "half-breed" with an outer-planar being doesn't make them necessarily similar enough to be one race, in terms of bonuses, biology, psychology, society, etc...
It would be like making Half-Elves and Half-Orcs subraces of the same race just because they are half human.
It would be too limiting for any of those races, in my opinion, to shove them together into a single race.
Nice piece of art! I would have liked to see the female dwarf with a beard (i even tweeted Mike Mearls today to know if any had been commissioned) but the quality of the artowrk is still amazing IMO.
Paraxis wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
As for race selection... I could do away with Dragonborn and Tieflings in the PHB.
I don't really mind them being there as I can just choose not to use them. But it becomes a bit of bloat to add too much stuff in the basic books that probably will not be part of many D&D games and settings.
Much as I'd like to see the Thri-Kreen and Mul, for example, I don't think they should take space of the PHB but be left to their own campaign book or a related suplement book.
Lord_Kyrion wrote:
Aasimar have human/outsider bloodlines. This is how they were imagined for the latter parts of 2e, in 3e, and now 5e. In 4e, the race was re-imagined as devas. Once they were angels, now they're bound to the world in mortal bodies, trapped in a cycle of life/death/rebirth.
So I wonder, which version of the race will we (initially) see? I'm guessing aasimar, since DDN seems focused on the more 'traditional' lore of the game. And not the re-imagined lore of 4e, with its World Axis cosmology, Dawn War, and Points of Light assumptions. I wouldn't be surprised to (eventually) see devas in DDN. I think it's just a matter of the publishers (and we, in our own home games) of determining how best to *merge* traditional D&D lore with what was seen in 4e.
In case anyone is wondering, I'm a fan of 4e and its lore. So, this is the sorta thing I wonder about 
.
I much prefer female Dwarves without bears, because my experience in getting women into the hobby is that they are both more likely to want to play a female character than a male one (just as male gamers make more male characters than female ones on average, though exceptions certainly exist), and when they do, they'd prefer she not be ugly. That's not to say all female characters need to be "hot" by any means (and in fact, making every female character into a chainmail bikini wearing model type isn't exactly appealing to women either), but they shouldn't default to being ugly either. And the simple reality is a short, stocky woman with a full beard is going to seem ugly according to most standards of Western beauty--and saying "but you can totally shave it, or put it in stylish braids" isn't really much of a selling point.
I can totally imagine showing the Dwarf pictured there to female players and having them say "cool, I'd totally be up for playing her."
I'm having a much harder time picturing them being as excited if the picture was the same, except she was rocking a beard. Even a "trimmed" or "braided" beard is still going to provoke that "I don't really feel like playing a woman with a beard" reaction most of the time.
Paraxis wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
What do you have against a female Dwarven Druid's choice of animal companionship?
"Now, do female dwarves have beards? Certainly! And male dwarves are darn glad of it, for they do love to run their fingers through the long, soft growth of a comely dwarven lass."- Gary Gygax, Dragon 38. SHAME ON YOU MR. MEARLS! SHAME ON YOU!
SHAME!
frothsof wrote:
Awesomeocalypse wrote:
souldoubt wrote:
Complains about tieflings, dragonborn, warforged being bloat.
Is totally fine with all 42 elf sub races, moon phase clans, and variant eye-glow colors.
I liked that there are all of the races from the 3.5e phb, plus the 2 new ones from the 4e phb. They don't have eldarin, but they do have high elves, which were what inspired eldarin anyway.
I also really like that there are subraces again. Grunge elves! Gully dwarves! Rainbow teiflings! Wooly halflings!
I'm still not nearly over the excitement of having bought the Starter Set on the 3rd, but seeing this preview page from the PHB has me all giddy again and excited for August.
Awesomeocalypse wrote:
also intresting to note ias the order of the races given.
@Trevor_WotC : It's alphabetical for common races, and then alphabetical for uncommon races.
demon_idol wrote:
So thats it huh? Damage on a miss gets 30 pages, but non-bearded female dwarves get a page and a half?
I'm glad to see all the core 3.5 and 4th ed races are there. That first page also looks damn good. I'm expecting at least one other picture for the other type of dwarf. I also would have liked physical appearance to be detailed to the specific subrace. We know it will be for drow so it would have been nice if all subraces got that treatment. But all in all it looks good so far.
Is it just me or are her hands really small?
Cool, the list includes every race that has appeared in a Player's Handbook 1 or equivalent since 1974.
frothsof wrote:
Lord_Kyrion wrote:
CVB wrote:
frothsof wrote:
That art is badass. Anyone else reminded of Val from the Table Titans comic?
jocanuck wrote:
frothsof wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
mellored wrote:
Alright, thats it. Yall broke my immersion.
The dwarf art looks good and I'm happy to see Tieflings are indeed in the core. Also, yay for people who like Dragonborn. Personally, I prefer Kobolds.
I haven't played 3.x since 2001 and never played 4e, so I'm neither "for" nor "against" Dragonborn and Tiefling PCs - i.e. I don't know enough about either of them to have strong feelings either way. Unless they're unexpectedly resonant (to me), I doubt they'll appear in my home campaign(s), but that's not a strike against them given how popular they are with others. Inclusiveness = Win as far as I'm concerned. 
Also, I'm excited to see 25+ pages of races, with 3-5 pages per race. Lots of fluffy goodness there, especially combined with the awesome page-long backgrounds. I hope the backgrounds TOC is next up for preview - I want to see that list!
Yay for Dragonborn and Tieflings being in Core! Good to see the core 7 from 3.5e showing up as well. I don't really care for Tieflings, but Dragonborn play an important part in my campaign, so I was hoping they would be included. Too bad Warforged isn't listed though...
I like the art, though someone mentioned not liking the armor... I think the painting looks unfinished in a way. The armor seems to lack the contrast of the cloth, hair, and skin and comes off a little flat. It also could have used some harder edges as the digital airbrushing makes it look soft. It doesn't quite capture the look of metal for me. Just nit picking, but I had the same reaction and it took me a few minutes to figure out why.
Still very well done and I am really looking forward to seeing more!
Paraxis wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Disappointed that Warforged aren't in the PHB it seems, but everything else looks pretty good.
Orethalion wrote:
My favorite modern version of dwarves is actually from dragon age. They still had all the clan society, but had an added dirty underside and nasty politics behind the scene. Yet they still came off very traditional in the game. My campaign are rarely black and white like dnd usually desribes races. **** elves tend to end up as bad guys more often than good guys so to speak because of their racism of lesser species.
Orethalion wrote:
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
Luciender wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
I hope we eventually wind up with Devas instead of Aasimars. They have a more appropriate name, more unique aesthetics and more unique lore. "Dude who looks human and has the same background as a race your already have" doesn't seem as appealing to me.
Orethalion wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Eerongal wrote:
frothsof wrote:
Awesomeocalypse wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Can we get the pictures posted in the thread please? I can't see them from where I'm viewing.
BoldItalic wrote:
Female Dwarves with beards was something I never liked. With that said, I'm certain I've read some 2e material in which female dwarves don't grow beards. When I have time I'll look it up.
Luciender wrote:
Magi_theKid wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
"that if a race appeared in one of the PHB, no matter what edition it was from, that it would most likely appear in the 5E PHB"
"Where are the gith, minotaur, wilden, shardmind, deva, goliath and shifter? I assume drow are getting put under elf."
Part of the confusion lies in the fact that some editions have more than 1 PHB. It's my opinion that what they meant was "If a race has appeared in the initial PHB of even one edition, we will include it in the initial PHB of this edition."
DemoMonkey wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
"In my campaign, they didn't survive the mass extinction event at the end of the Plasticine Epoch."
When Gumbiesaurus Rex and Pokiedon roamed the Earth.
pauln6 wrote:
Nautilus wrote:
DavidArgall wrote:
If you want a bearded woman, more power to you. If we had to import a traditionally masculine characteristic to put on female dwarves, i'd personally prefer muscularity over hair so they can have a traditionally feminine face to go with a believable +2 Str modifier.
GhostStepper wrote:
quindia wrote:
CVB wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
25 pages just for your race selection? 12 classes with 5-9 subclasses each? 150ish+ spells? Plus Backgrounds, Equiptment, etc. So basically 90% of the 5E Player's Handbook is character creation?
Person_Man wrote:
Person_Man wrote:
With apologies to Mr. Rogers "Every dwarf is fancy, every dwarf is fine, your dwarf is fancy, and so is mine."
Both bearded and non-bearded female dwarves are completely legitimate ways to express the dwarven race. In my games female dwarves never stopped having beards. But as DM I never forced any player of a female dwarf to have her character have a beard, and I doubt many DMs would refuse to allow a player to have her dwarf be proud of her beautiful beard even if in his world generally lady dwarves aren't bearded.
Now if y'all will excuse me, I have to go dig up Lady Chrysoberyl Strongaxe, paladin with prayer beads braided into her beard, and see if I can convert her to the new D&D.
Cheers!
Monica
GhostStepper wrote:
Person_Man wrote:
rookrock wrote:
Not a fan of the dwarf picture. There's just something off about it (beardless is okay). Maybe it's the facial expression...pouty. A+ on Dragonborn and Tiefling making the core cut!!
rookrock wrote:
Person_Man wrote:
People are really going to throw a tantrum over a female dwarf that doesn't have a beard? Seriously? 
Do you have the same reaction every time you see an adult human male without a beard? Do you go up to clean-shaven men you see in public and scream "WHY IS YOUR FACE SO SMOOTH! HUMAN MALES ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEARDS! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?!!" 
FallingIcicle wrote:
Dragonette wrote:
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
rookrock wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
Gender aside, does not quite do Dwarf for me.
emwasick wrote:
Hebitsuizka wrote:
Everything in the Basic rules we currently have is from the PHB. (In August, material from the MM and DMG will be added to Basic). You will not need the Basic pdf to play if you have the PHB.
The PHB may have more examples of the rules, and/or a few more rules.
It is exceedingly unlikely there will be any monsters or adventures in the PHB. That's not what it's for. Mike mentioned a sample adventure in the DMG.
Part of the reason for Basic D&D is to cover the basics so that the core three books can focus on precisely what they are for.
The problem with elves is they ain't got no meat on their bones. You gotta get yourself a nice two-hundred and fifty-pound dwarf, with hair on her chin you can hang on to!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohj1ZIXiO44&t=24m37s
More on topic, though, my campaign world doesn't have bearded dwarf women as the default consideration. It could certainly happen, though, should the player want it. I liked the 4E-style where the men took great pride in their beards, while the women took the same pride in their great manes of hair. But I'm not averse to some women having ... thicker facial growth than normal. I've certainly seen it in the real world.
rookrock wrote:
DavidArgall wrote:
DavidArgall wrote:
emwasick wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
Person_Man wrote:
ProphetSword wrote:
AH_schulerta wrote:
I miss the "descended from fiendish relations" tiefling as well with its greater variety and potential for both demonic and devlish heritage. I like my tieflings to be individuals and not some race.
But I imagine, like with the half-elves and half-orcs, they want to downplay the idea of sexual violence and people coupling with demons.
Still, in my campaign settings, they will have fiendish blood and the fluff about Asmodeus goes bye-bye.
I'm disappointed that the 4e tiefling is the only option. I much prefer the older tieflings that could be descended from either devils or demons and that didn't have ridiculously large horns and tails.
Not a fan of most of the preview art at all. This is the worst.
I am glad the tiefling is in the PH for 5E. Art looks great.
I wonder if all the races will get female picitures... Not that I'm complaining.
FallingIcicle wrote:
Finish that sentence before the page cuts off in the PHB Dwarf excerpt (Pg. 18).
"Many dwarves have a strong sense..."
I'm going to go with.
"... of *Ale Heading."
* May find ale within a 30' radius and through 2' of stonework.
i think the artist for the tiefling mixed up the hair and skin tone passages when they were consulting them for this tiefling's skin color. i thought WotC was supposed to be all about consistency across their visual mediums?
i really want to know who the artist is on this so i can ask them why they made such a dumb mistake. it's worse than purple drow.
abanathie wrote:
bit on the bard in a tweet from Morrus of EnWorld.
edwin_su wrote:
FallingIcicle wrote:
can sombody make the page for the dwarf and thifling to the same scale, I wonder if the races are show in relitive size to eachother.
kill_the_wiz_first wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
Lokiron wrote:
Lokiron wrote:
You do not in fact need the free pdf with the PHB. You need it if you do not have the MM and DMG. If you have all three core books, you have everything in the free pdf. So if you want to run the game between August and November you need the free pdf and everything else is optional. After the three core books are out in Novemenber, you do not need the free pdf at all. This has been explained to us. Everything in the free pdfs is excerpted from the three core books. There is no original content in it.
If I'm not addressing what was actually being argued, ignore this post.
Well, those of us who are broke will need the free PDF, which hopefully will not be as restricted in content as it currently seems to be.
Then again, I'm basically asking for a free copy of the PHB with relevant sections of the MM and DMG. Which would be very nice to have, but I'm not likely to get it.
RustedKitsune wrote:
emwasick wrote:
DavidArgall, I can barely comprehend what you are saying, but what I can comprehend screams misogyny and that you want only a single fantasy world that is only slightly modified.
People like you push so much of the creative players and DM's away from D&D and gaming in general.
And the scary thing is that it seems to me that you want that.
Dwarven females have beards, because that's the defult tradition for the default world of this edition.
Unless the DM says they don't.
Because DM creativity trumps rulebook.
...what was the problem again?
DavidArgall wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
I'm jones'en hard for another preview, yo.
I don't think I've ever actually seen a depiction of a bearded female dwarf. I certainly can't imagine one that doesn't look freaking ridiculous. It's a moot point anyway; the chick in the picture could be too young to grow a beard, or from a group that shaves, or even an exile shamed by having her beard shorn. The picture is not
incompatiible with dwarven women being able to grow beards.
ClockworkNecktie wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
"Let's look over the basic Background page from the PHB in preparation for some background previews this week."
Same text as in the Basic PDF, just showing the artwork and layout.
Inspiration should of been only in the DMG... and with that said, I think I used up all my alloted opinions for the day so rejoice everyone. =)
kill_the_wiz_first wrote:
rookrock wrote:
Crimson_red wrote:
The picture of the dwarf chick does not quite sit right with me, reminds me of a comedian or musician I can't quite put my finger on.
"The picture of the dwarf chick does not quite sit right with me, reminds me of a comedian or musician I can't quite put my finger on."
Mrs Garrett from "The Facts of Life"*.
"Girls girls GIRRRRLS! Stay in the marching order!"
...
* Yeah, yeah, I know. AND "Different Strokes".
rookrock wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
I am not really into Action Points and/or Inspiration, easily ignored.
"But, yeah, maybe a bit like Tim Minchin?"
Naw. Not nearly enough eyeliner.
[quote="DemoMonkey"]
"The picture of the dwarf chick does not quite sit right with me, reminds me of a comedian or musician I can't quite put my finger on."
Mrs Garrett from "The Facts of Life"*.
"Girls girls GIRRRRLS! Stay in the marching order!"
...
* Yeah, yeah, I know. AND "Different Strokes".
[/quote]
My days of taking that picture seriously just came to an abrupt end. The image is burned into my mind.
Thanks. 