quote:

---

Aarackocra
Assimar
Bugbear
Centaur
Changeling
Deep Gnome
Duergar
Eladrin
Fairy
Firbolg
Genasi, Air
Genasi, Earth
Genasi, Fire
Gennasi, Water
Githyanki
Githzerai
Goblin
Goliath
Harengon
Hobgoblin
Kenku
Kobold
Lizardfolk
Minotaur
Orc
Satyr
Sea Elf
Shadar Kai
Shifter
Tabaxi
Turtle
Triton
Yuan-ti

---

quote:

---

Abishai (Black, Blue, Green, Red, White)
Alhoon
Alkilith
Allip
Amnizu
Annis Hag
Archdruid
Archer
Armanite
Astral Deadnought
Babau
Bael
Balhannoth
Banderhobb
Baphomet
Bard
Barghest
Berbalang
Bheur Hag
Blackguard
Bodak
Boggle
Boneclaw
Bulezau
Cadaver Collector
Canoloth
Catoblepas
Cattle (Aurochs, Ox, Stench Kow, Deep Rothe)
Cave Fisher
Champion
Chitine
Choker
Choldrith
Clockwork (Bronze Scout, Iron Cobra, Oaken Bolter, Stone Defender)
Cloud Giant Smiling One
Corpse Flower
Cranium Rat, Swarm of Cranium Rat
Darkling, Darkling Elder
Death Kiss
Deathlock, Deathlock Mastermind, Deathlock Wight
Deep Scion
Demogorgon
Derro, Derro Savant
Devourer
Dhergoloth
Dinosaurs (Brontosaurus, Deinonychus, Dimetrodon, Hadrosaurus, Quetzalcoatlus, Stegosaurus, Velociraptor)
Dolphin, Dolphin Delighter
Draegloth
Drow (Arachnomancer, Favored Consort, House Captain, Inquisitor, Matron Mother, Shadowblade)
Duergar (Despot, Kavalrachni, Mind Master, Soulblade, Stone Guard, Warlord, Xarrorn, Hammerer, Screamer)
Dybbuk
Eidolon
Eladrin (Autumn, Spring, Summer, Winter)
Elder Brain
Elder Tempest
Elemental Myrmidon (Air, Earth, Fire, Water)
Fire Giant Dreadnought
Firenewt (Warrior, Warlock of Imix)
Flail Snail
Flind
Fraz-Urb'luu
Froghemoth
Frost Giant Everlasting One
Frost Salamander
Gauth
Gazer
Geryon
Giant Strider
Giff
Girallon
Githyanki (Gish, Kith'rak, Supreme Commander, Anarch, Enlightened)
Gnoll (Flesh Gnawer, Hunter, Witherling)
Gray Render
Grazz't
Grung (Elite Warrior, Wildling)
Guard Drake
Hellfire Engine
Hobgoblin (Devastator, Iron Shadow)
Howler
Hutijin
Hydroloth
Juiblex
Ki-Rin
Kobold (Dragonshield, Inventor, Scale Sorcerer)
Korred
Kraken Priest
Kruthik (Hive Lord, Adult, Young)
Leucrotta
Leviathan
Martial Arts Adept
Marut
Master Thief
Maurezhi
Maw Demon
Meazel
Meenlock
Merregon
Merrenoloth
Mindwitness
Moloch
Molydeus
Morkoth
Mouth of Grolantor
Nabassu
Nagpa
Narzugon
Neogi, Neogi Hatchling, Neogi Master
Neothelid
Nightwalker
Nilbog
Nupperibo
Oblex (Spawn, Adult, Elder)
Ogre (Battering Ram, Bolt Launcher, Chain Brute, Howdah)
Oinoloth
Orcus
Orthon
Phoenix
Quickling
Redcap
Retriever
Rutterkin
Sea Spawn
Shadar Kai (Gloom Weaver, Shadow Dancer, Soul Monger)
Shadow Mastiff, Shadow Mastiff Alpha
Shoosuva
Sibriex
Skulk
Skull Lord
Slithering Tracker
Shadowsworn (The Angry, The Hungry, The Lonely, The Lost, The Wretched)
Spawn of Kyuss
Star Spawn (Grue, Hulk, Lava Mage, Mangler, Seer)
Steeder (Female, Male)
Steel Predator
Stone Cursed
Stone Giant Dreamwalker
Storm Giant Quintessent
Swarm of Rot Grubs
Swachbuckler
Sword Wraith (Commander, Warrior)
Tanarukk
Titivilus
Tlincalli
Tortle
Turtle Druid
Trapper
Troll (Dire, Rot, Spirit, Venom)
Ulitharid
Vampiric Mist
Vargouille
Vegepygmy, Vegepygmy Chief, Vegepygmy Thorny
War Priest
Warlock (of the Archfey, Fiend, Great Old One)
Warlord
Wastrilith
Wizard (Apprentice, Abjurer, Conjurer, Diviner, Enchanter, Evoker, Illusionist, Necromancer, Transmuter)
Wood Woad
Xvart, Xvart Warlock of Raxivort
Yagnoloth
Yeenoghu
Yeah Hound
Yuan-ti (Anathema, Broodguard, Mind Whisperer, Nightmare Speaker, Pit Master)
Zaratan
Zariel
Zuggtmoy

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Krashos

What constitutes a "fairy"?

-- George Krashos

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Krashos

What constitutes a "fairy"?

-- George Krashos

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Me, I'm hoping genasi no longer have neon racing stripes...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ayrik

The real question is not quantity, it's quality.

Are these new writeups of old faces revised in a careful, thoughtful, balanced, creative manner? Or are they just quickly reformatted-into-latest-edition pulp?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ayrik

The real question is not quantity, it's quality.

Are these new writeups of old faces revised in a careful, thoughtful, balanced, creative manner? Or are they just quickly reformatted-into-latest-edition pulp?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomCosta

Some of the changes irk me, but they are definitely philosophical differences. I'm all for allowing players to make the character they want and giving them the flexibility to change racial aspects, whether alignment, height, proficiency, ability bonuses, etc. However, I think establishing an archetype is not necessarily wrong. Absent some of that information the various races start to look like they lose some flavor. I recognize everyone's mileage may vary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sleyvas

Hmm, I didn't even know yuan-ti had been released as a player race for 5e. What book was that in?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HighOne

quote:

---

Originally posted by sleyvas

Hmm, I didn't even know yuan-ti had been released as a player race for 5e. What book was that in?

---

Volo's Guide to Monsters. It was generally considered overpowered when it came out (Yuan-ti Purebloods have advantage on saving throws against all spells and magical effects). If it was toned down for this book, I'll be pleasantly surprised.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
First, I stumbled across the cover art, which is a definite homage to the original Manual of the Planes: https://www.artstation.com/artwork/LeRDzA

The art was shared by the artist, and shows both the cover itself and a clean version of the artwork.

(Also, here's a pic of the original book, iffen you want to compare cover art)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

Me, I'm hoping genasi no longer have neon racing stripes...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sleyvas

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomCosta

Some of the changes irk me, but they are definitely philosophical differences. I'm all for allowing players to make the character they want and giving them the flexibility to change racial aspects, whether alignment, height, proficiency, ability bonuses, etc. However, I think establishing an archetype is not necessarily wrong. Absent some of that information the various races start to look like they lose some flavor. I recognize everyone's mileage may vary.

---

Just trying to get what you mean here. If I rephrased it "When there's no mechanical difference between one flying race and another other than looks, it really makes no real defining difference to them"..... would that kind of mean what you were saying? If so, I agree. I like having meaningful mechanical differences, especially if the only issues would then be social ones (especially since we see them totally rewriting a lot of the cultural notes for races).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scots Dragon

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

Me, I'm hoping genasi no longer have neon racing stripes...

---

Maybe firbolgs will also be tall red-haired giants again... and perhaps we'll even get tieflings that don't all have the exact same features and aren't all tied to various archdevils.

I'm not holding my breath.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomCosta

quote:

---

Originally posted by sleyvas

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomCosta

Some of the changes irk me, but they are definitely philosophical differences. I'm all for allowing players to make the character they want and giving them the flexibility to change racial aspects, whether alignment, height, proficiency, ability bonuses, etc. However, I think establishing an archetype is not necessarily wrong. Absent some of that information the various races start to look like they lose some flavor. I recognize everyone's mileage may vary.

---

Just trying to get what you mean here. If I rephrased it "When there's no mechanical difference between one flying race and another other than looks, it really makes no real defining difference to them"..... would that kind of mean what you were saying? If so, I agree. I like having meaningful mechanical differences, especially if the only issues would then be social ones (especially since we see them totally rewriting a lot of the cultural notes for races).

---

Yeah that's close.

If a dwarf is just a person who is resistant to poison and has darkvision and stonecunning, it loses a lot of the archetype of what a dwarf in D&D has traditionally been, whether I want to play to or against that archetype. Knowing that the dominant dwarven culture is typically LG in outlook helps set up the family and clan structure that is part of their culture, as does their height, long life, Con bonus, and combat training. Does that mean every dwarf should be that, absolutely not, they are all individuals, but it's a starting point for their culture as presented in lore. Most elves are CG, but damn if a whole lot of the wickedest surface elves in the Realms acted a lot more like LE, establishing empires with clear levels of control and organization. Similarly most elves have a Dex bonus, totally cool if they don't, but a key to the archetype is that elves are usually "slender and graceful." Otherwise, you have a creature that has darkvision, resistance to charm, and that doesn't sleep. To me, all of those other traits help establish the archetype and set up the general culture to play to or against. Could there be and should there be more complexities in individuals and even unique versions of the cultures, sure, but I think we lose a little something if we increasingly take away some of these norms. Keep the archetype and also keep the customization options like in Tasha's (totally on board with all of them). I think WotC is over-reacting to a mix of some legitimate and some less legitimate concerns.

Similarly, alignment is clearly stated to be the default in the MM, and that monsters can depart from that default. Nevertheless, that was recently jettisoned (over reaction) and then brought back with words that denote the commonality of the AL like "typically" (totally fine IMO, albeit maybe not necessary), but dropped for humanoids. The latter makes little sense to me. If you establish that most drow cultures are beholden to a demon goddess that demands blood and chaos, then yeah, most of the people in that culture will default to evil, not because they are inherently so, but because that's how they were raised. Same with most of the evil humanoids like orcs. Just like the dominant human culture has generally been neutral with good and evil.

In the novels, we've seen some of this diversity with a certain prominent renegade drow or two and an orc paladin, among others. We've seen evil elves and dwarves, as well as good ones. The same is true in various other products. I'm also not miffed about small enclaves of good drow if the story is good enough. All of that diversity is good.

All that said, I really don't want to start a whole debate about all this. To each their own. I just think there is a better balance to be had.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sleyvas

Hmm, I didn't even know yuan-ti had been released as a player race for 5e. What book was that in?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomCosta

quote:

---

Originally posted by sleyvas

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomCosta

Some of the changes irk me, but they are definitely philosophical differences. I'm all for allowing players to make the character they want and giving them the flexibility to change racial aspects, whether alignment, height, proficiency, ability bonuses, etc. However, I think establishing an archetype is not necessarily wrong. Absent some of that information the various races start to look like they lose some flavor. I recognize everyone's mileage may vary.

---

Just trying to get what you mean here. If I rephrased it "When there's no mechanical difference between one flying race and another other than looks, it really makes no real defining difference to them"..... would that kind of mean what you were saying? If so, I agree. I like having meaningful mechanical differences, especially if the only issues would then be social ones (especially since we see them totally rewriting a lot of the cultural notes for races).

---

Yeah that's close.

If a dwarf is just a person who is resistant to poison and has darkvision and stonecunning, it loses a lot of the archetype of what a dwarf in D&D has traditionally been, whether I want to play to or against that archetype. Knowing that the dominant dwarven culture is typically LG in outlook helps set up the family and clan structure that is part of their culture, as does their height, long life, Con bonus, and combat training. Does that mean every dwarf should be that, absolutely not, they are all individuals, but it's a starting point for their culture as presented in lore. Most elves are CG, but damn if a whole lot of the wickedest surface elves in the Realms acted a lot more like LE, establishing empires with clear levels of control and organization. Similarly most elves have a Dex bonus, totally cool if they don't, but a key to the archetype is that elves are usually "slender and graceful." Otherwise, you have a creature that has darkvision, resistance to charm, and that doesn't sleep. To me, all of those other traits help establish the archetype and set up the general culture to play to or against. Could there be and should there be more complexities in individuals and even unique versions of the cultures, sure, but I think we lose a little something if we increasingly take away some of these norms. Keep the archetype and also keep the customization options like in Tasha's (totally on board with all of them). I think WotC is over-reacting to a mix of some legitimate and some less legitimate concerns.

Similarly, alignment is clearly stated to be the default in the MM, and that monsters can depart from that default. Nevertheless, that was recently jettisoned (over reaction) and then brought back with words that denote the commonality of the AL like "typically" (totally fine IMO, albeit maybe not necessary), but dropped for humanoids. The latter makes little sense to me. If you establish that most drow cultures are beholden to a demon goddess that demands blood and chaos, then yeah, most of the people in that culture will default to evil, not because they are inherently so, but because that's how they were raised. Same with most of the evil humanoids like orcs. Just like the dominant human culture has generally been neutral with good and evil.

In the novels, we've seen some of this diversity with a certain prominent renegade drow or two and an orc paladin, among others. We've seen evil elves and dwarves, as well as good ones. The same is true in various other products. I'm also not miffed about small enclaves of good drow if the story is good enough. All of that diversity is good.

All that said, I really don't want to start a whole debate about all this. To each their own. I just think there is a better balance to be had.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomCosta

Some of the changes irk me, but they are definitely philosophical differences. I'm all for allowing players to make the character they want and giving them the flexibility to change racial aspects, whether alignment, height, proficiency, ability bonuses, etc. However, I think establishing an archetype is not necessarily wrong. Absent some of that information the various races start to look like they lose some flavor. I recognize everyone's mileage may vary.

---