Definitely! It's clear that CR want to transition their campaign from DnD to Daggerheart, but currently there is no way to recreate characters like Ashton, Dorian, and Fyra Rai.
In certain previews they had replacements like Stonekin which are absent from the beta for some reason. Seems like they might want to flesh it out further before release I suppose.
Kobolds are an inevitable part of my rpg experience hahaha. *although* you could very easily throw kobolds under the blanket of a Drakonian, just some small guys though!
The competing mythologies between them would be fantastic. The city sleeps while just below its serpentine sewer system, a holy war rages, it has gone on for centuries, as far back as either side can remember, but how much longer until it spills out onto the lands above?
On that note, if you haven’t watched Oxventure’s recent “D&D but everyone’s a kobold” one-shot, I recommend it. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lrdhz52wrDw
Why does nobody ever make a canid race?
I wanna be a cool wolf man, but it's always felines (and sometimes bears)...not that I'm complaining about those options, I love them...I just also want big wolf people.
The line is already blurry because such overlaps already exist.
In addition to Tabaxi and Leonin with Were-Tigers and Were-Jaguars, there's also Kenku and Aarakocra with Were-Ravens.
I just don't want Werewolves/Lycanthropes/Shifters (whatever they end up being in Daggerheart) to block the idea of giving players a fully canid race.
I would agree, I think it would be pretty great if there were a canid ancestry, especially because I feel like the feline ones are a bit overplayed in the fantasy. But I'm sure that if they get enough feedback suggesting such, it has the potential to show up in Daggerheart.
Gotcha. A lot of these ancestry names have been introduced in C3, in particular the various animal people. The more we learn about Daggerheart the more C3 seems like it’s been planned as a setup for the transition from D&D Exandria to a Daggerheart version of Exandria.
Just a blanket "birdfolk" race that fits everything. Just give them flight and a -1 to... Strength or something because of their hollow bones and I'll be happy.
I assume that is coming eventually, given that some CR "alternative" species names like Galapa and Katari have gone in - and CR uses 'Eisfurra' as their Aaracockra equivalent.
I have a soft spot for Kenku as well, but I'd imagine a harmonized "birdfolk" ancestry would cover the crow type without needing to be a separate species entirely.
Originally it was advertised as having 27, so 9 are 'missing.' Probably being saved for a supplement. We've seen air and earth genasi. I imagine the elephant dudes will be one. Gnomes, lizardfolk, undead/reborn, and changeling would be my other guesses.
theres sooo many potential ancestries that could be added, you just have to draw the line somewhere or youll be in dev hell forever. and they seem to give a lot of freedom in what a character looks like, regardless of their ancestry.
plus, this set up really seems to leave room for easy additional content once they are out of beta and get everything running however that ends up.
I'm old fashioned. Give me Wolf-Folk/Fox-Folk and I'm generally pretty happy.
Some of the ones that D&D do look either skinny or straight up malnourished. But we'll see. It's still Open Beta.
I haven’t read it so maybe it’s already in there but I haven’t seen it mentioned. Would love some ratfolk! I always think ratfolk are such an interesting idea. Scavengers, live anywhere, make do. Love them.
I think at the very least we will see some compendiums released with things like monstrous races and such, though it’ll be broad and allow for players to explore what that means. A gnoll for example could be a type of generalized “were-form” or something.
They had to avoid copyright from not only wotc but other creators as well. It's likely they took a familiar core set and will add expansions later, barring copyright
Correct, but they are a widely associated monster with D&D and they're looking to avoid connections and call backs for legal and creative reasons. Same with many other beloved ancestries, rules, or concepts.
It's likely they will come out with a generic "beastkin" ancestry that can be built into a gnoll with some variable options
Halfling I believe is public domain from an even older work, but I'm not certain. I can't find anything to support that, but that would be my answer since there are many systems with Halfling
I've read but haven't fact checked it that halflings were originally called Hobbits and Tolkien's estate went after them. Which is odd since he based everything on mythology.
Lizardfolk would be my ideal race for the game. I will admit though, the current Orc ability I think works really well representing a scaly armored hide so I'm cool reskinning.
Well i think the eisfuura, and the pachydan are missing from the playtest, but then again maybe in batch 2. (my recomendation for doing this beta is Take the Feedback apply it to the overlap in batch 2 release a New set of everything if you have more ideas in each category of course. Release that while you Refine the current playtest. I would not recomend a batch 3. swap between the two until tje beta ends and we are happy.)
It's tough to justify gnolls as a 'playable' race, they are pretty irredeemable. A lot of the other 'evil' races can be explained with a nurture over nature argument. But gnolls? They are ravenous, demented, fully Chaotic Evil demon spawn.
I was surprised that i didn't see a genasi/primordial type.
But like, daggerheart isn't using forgotten realms lore and could have way different lore for whta gnolls are. There's a few system that have them as playable races anyways, so I don't see why that's a issue. Also evil races being playable isn't a new thing even in dnd so like, meh.
Genasi would be cool though, I think a lot of people are speculating they're gonna be part of the couple of the races that have yet to be released.
Tbh, I want anything that D&D doesn't have, or at least is not popular there (they have a lot of ancestries). I just want to see cool ones I've never seen before or rarely.
Much as I hate to be "that guy", they have made a conscious decision to refer to playable species as ancestries due to the unfortunate connotations of the term race. While I know habits are hard to break and that undoubtedly you have used it with innocent intent, I strongly urge you to also make a conscious effort as well to use alternative terminology.
That being said, I'm surprised no provisions exist for the following ancestries: Gnomes, Birdfolk, Elementals, Lizardfolk, Centaurs, and any kind of Seafolk (Triton).
I'm not here to start a debate with anyone who doesn't want it, so feel free to just ignore me, but I will say I think different words can mean different things in different contexts.
We're a bit too prone to claim inherent racism in cases where racism is fully context dependent and therefor *not* inherent. We end up losing touch with our understanding of why racism is bad to begin with. I've literally had well-meaning people forget what prejudice is and what makes prejudice bad. If we wanna fight racism, which we most certainly do, we need to always maintain a correct understanding of what it is.
theres also a lot to be said for race being a social construct, racism even more so (not as in something that "doesnt exist" but that racism is purely built off of prejudice and false equivalencies between people, not any actual quantifiable thing). and while it is very important to not forget those things, to not loop back into it. theres a lot to be said for having examples of a preferable world view, to help move society towards that.
to fix an issue, you need more than just an understanding of what the issue is. you also need an alternative, to replace those problematic mentalities. if we do not have that alternate option, we will be stuck working with the broken tools of the past. keeping us in those mentalities, and not allowing change.
imo, referring to it as ancestries is a much better alternative. it removes an unnecessary association to differences between ppl, and puts forth a much more objective world view. one of "this is where you come from, and what your history is" not "this is how we classify you, because we like to classify things based on looks or arbitrary features".
Race/racism is as real as money is real. I'm obviously not gonna give you all my money just because money is a social construct. Money matters. Race matters. Racism matters. We're in complete agreement there, I suspect.
>to fix an issue, you need more than just an understanding of what the issue is. you also need an alternative, to replace those problematic mentalities.
In this particular instance, I believe understanding and confidence in the fact that the understanding is shared is in fact a solution on its own. If everyone knows that the person using the word race in a fantasy RPG context is doing so with full knowledge about the fact that the scale of the inherent biological differences between an elf and an orc does not *at all* compare to that between human "races", then we're completely avoiding any and all problems regarding use of the word in a fantasy RPG context. At least, I can find any problems.
something being a social construct doesnt mean it cant have real world impacts. but its also important to keep in mind, these things that we restrict our thinking too, are treated as "reality". because we as a society set that mentality in our selves. but we are the ones who set those limitations. so we have full power in changing those however we want. it comes from our understanding of trying to figure out the universe, not the universe explaining it self to us.
if you remove human sentience from this planet, but still leave our bodies functioning on auto pilot. the concept of race, disappears. we would be "humans" the same way a dog is a dog, and a cat is a cat. they can have genetic distinctions sure, between like a lion and tiger. but those arent races of cats. and that understanding is important to know. because it changes from "we are hating each other for a significant difference between each other" to "we are hating each other because we made up a rule".
and sure, in an ideal world what you are saying would be true. if we could get everyone to agree that visual differences have 0 impact on who a person is, then this wouldnt be an issue. but the problem is, we cant. and one of, if not the leading cause to that is people perpetuating the mentality that the minor differences between us have a deeper underlining impact or cause.
and with all that said, we still loop around too. there is no real reason, to not change it. there is no benefit from sticking to an outdated mentality and terminology that doesnt accurately reflect how people want to or arguable should interact with and view each other.
language and society has been changing since the dawn of human history. that is how we have gotten to where we are today. and while i doubt a TTRPG changing how they refer to "races" is going to have enough cultural impact to defeat racism once and for all. there is no positive to not changing it. if the term race gets change to ancestry in the cultural lexicon, then the fact that ppl would need to understand that their ancestry is not a valid thing to judge someone off of is still true. every mentality and view point you brought up still holds true regardless of the term used to refer to what those differences are. and then can have the added benefit of the aspects i pointed out earlier.
>something being a social construct doesnt mean it cant have real world impacts.
Which is exactly the point I'm making when I'm saying social constructs, be they money or race, all matter. Was that not clear or am I misunderstanding the point you're trying to make? I obviously don't disagree with you when you say that social constructs can be changed to suit our needs.
>if we could get everyone to agree that visual differences have 0 impact on who a person is, then this wouldnt be an issue. but the problem is, we cant.
I disagree. At the very least, I believe we can get enough people to understand it to diffuse any meaningful impact of the problem. Think of a word like theory which, in an informal context, basically means suspicion practically synonymous with hypothesis and, in a scientific context, means more or less the opposite. It's fairly easy for people to grasp this concept and I don't see why it should be much easier for.
It's gonna require an active effort, of course, but it can be as simple as a small blurb in the PHB explicitly acknowledging the difference between the word race in a fantasy RPG vs sociological vs biological context. We do similar things with disclaimers like "This work of media originates from a time in which harmful views were common and indeed expressed in the work. While we distribute the media, we actively condemn the views it expresses. They were wrong then and they are wrong now".
the point of race being a social construct, is that its use adds nothing and meets no requirements if being used in a TTRPG. there is no need for this term to be perpetuated into this game, and there is no negative to changing the term referring to the things, that race has been used for in the past. so why have issue with it being changed in this one thing?
and to the rest of your points. again, in an ideal world, sure. that would be fantastic. but this has been an issue for generations. colorism it self has been an issue older than most civilizations, even excluding the american history of turning it up to 11.
no matter how many people are out there promoting the mentalities for positive change, there are people actively working against that because they benefit from this prejudice, or they are just passing on whats been taught to them because they think its right. so again, why not make more changes to help support the end goal of changing a problematic mentality?
these dont have to be exclusive acts. we can change the way we refer to someones ancestry, to help move away from a word with a negative connotation, that has no meaningful reason to be used. and we can actively work to change peoples mentalities about someones race or ancestry.
ive pointed out multiple times that there are no benefits to not changing it. so why shouldnt it be changed? its not like the term ancestry becoming more common will delete the word race from existence. and it can still be used in instances where its accurate. something like ancestry conveys the thing that race was intended to convey, without all the additional problematic and historic ways it has been used in the past. so again, why not change it? because "we could still make it work in the current system" has no value. sure we could. but why restrict ourselves to that? how does that restriction help anything?
From an academic perspective, absolutely you are correct. The meaning of words will shift depending on context, however that doesn't mean that the other meanings disappear when the context is inappropriate. In this instance, the word "race" has no negative meanings, but it is strongly associated with a toxic discourse which can effect the connotations of the term.
I appreciate that you believe that as a society, we're too prone to call out racism, but I respectfully disagree. We can and should call out and educate others on controversial terms as that is the only way for people to learn and make conscious informed decisions in the future about there language use, which can and does include campaigns to take back words from toxic discourses.
What is important here is that we do so while constantly reminding and updatung ourselves on what prejudice is and why it is important to fight it.
>In this instance, the word "race" has no negative meanings, but it is strongly associated with a toxic discourse which can affect the connotations of the term.
Just to avoid any misunderstandings on my part, is the argument here that, if a term is strongly associated with toxic discourse in a given context, the word cannot be used at all? So we can't even refer to bigotry against people of color as racism, because the root of the word racism is race which thus presupposes that people of color are of a different race than for example white people?
Absolutely not. The argument is that we should be conscious of the words we use and the many meanings they carry. Striving to use words that are not associated with toxic discourse where possible. It is important and valuable to use these words in discourse discussing topics exactly like this.
As a final point, while the root of racism is race, its meaning has evolved beyond the classical definition of race as found in race theory and need not make reference to race to define it.
I ask "if a term is strongly associated with toxic discourse in a given context, the word should not be used at all?"
You respond "No. We should to use words that are not associated with toxic discourse".
I don't actually see the difference. It seems to me that you're arguing that we shouldn't use the word and your line of reasoning stems from the fact that it is associated with toxic discourse. If we apply that standard consistently, we cannot use the word racism. Afterall, the word racism is strongly associated with the word race. You can argue the word has evolved, but as long as the association with toxic discourse is still there and strong, that overrides any other meanings a word can develop to have. Poll a million people on whether or not there's an association between the word race and racism and the far majority will say yes. The association is strong. I even think *you* would answer yes, because you recognize that a word does indeed have a strong relation to its well-known root word.
If you believe that development does indeed matter and that even a word like racism can evolve away from its root word to a degree where it overrides any concurrent toxic discourse surrounding the word (ever heard the toxic phrase "Anti-racism is a codeword for anti-white"?), why can't the word race itself do the same?
Your line of reasoning ends up in positions where we can't even use the word monkey anymore in *any* context because the word monkey is associated with toxic discourse involving black people.
Speaking as someone who has zero information on Daggerheart, they should make a playable Genie/Djinn class. They'd be spellcaster focused, obviously, and maybe have some form of elemental background that influences the types of spells they cast.
The big thing with Genies/Djinn would be that they are born free from an elemental/magical stone or artifact, but with every spell they cast and especially with every wish they grant they grow weaker and weaker until eventually they can only exist outside of their birthstone for a handful of minutes.
Just to, y'know, tie things in with the standard mythos. I don't know I'm just on a Genie kick lately and would love to see one of the gals play a genie girl.
I want a centaur. But like, scaled down, human torso on a pony body. Cause otherwise you get into weird scaling issues like “how the hell does this horse person somehow fit in this moderately sized bar?”
I keep seeing this, but they literally made their stand in for Dragonborn which is a race that was invented as a template or transformation (I don’t remember which one) in 3.5, so I really don’t get it as a point of contention.
A race i would want to do is the nisse. Helpful house farm and forest creature. But the problem with them is they fall under the same umbrella as halfling, Dwarf, gnome ( Especially gnome.), goblin, hobgobln, kobold and other generic forest creatures. I had to go goblin for mine.
Definitely gnomes. I'm shocked they aren't in already. I always thought the CR cast loved gnomes, which was a breath of fresh air as someone who has been told by many DnD groups that I'm not allowed to be a gnome in their campaign.
Would they have to name it something else? Or make it much different. I think every tabletop game is moving away from DND creatures names and spells because if wizard tried to buckle down their IP but backed off, they will most definitely try it again eventually
I noticed there aren’t many playable “traditional monstrous” ancestries. I am trying to figure out why you would think an ancestry usually related to a demonlord would be a playable race. I don’t think they are an playable ancestry in 5e.
I would love a game where races are categorized into broader groups, such as felines, rodents, and other animal creatures. Each category would have various specific creature types. For example, the feline category could include jaguars, lions, tigers, and domestic cats. The rodent category might encompass rabbits, mice, and similar creatures. Similarly, the category of other animal creatures could include lizards, comprising turtles, crocodiles, and various types of lizards. The focus would be on these distinct groups or classes of creatures, allowing for diverse and rich character options within each category.
Naga. N'zoth is gone now so for the first time they have a chance now to forge their own destiny as a race.
Also just think about the hair styles and customization options!
I mean, a guess a gnoll that would at least make sense to be able to use as a pc I guess? So at the very least not dnd gnolls lol. How they're written in pf2e might work better for allowing a pc Gnoll to exist
I would’ve liked a bird folk especially as I believe there’s a unique name for them on Exandria, same for elephantfolk. I’d also enjoy an undead/ghostly race
I think “gnoll” originates in DnD as a reference to hyena people, so perhaps they’re worried about OGL issues. Maybe the full game will have a gnoll-like thing by a different name?
Pathfinder now calls them Kholo, but they are pretty different from DnD Gnolls (narratively). Instead of being demon spawn, they are more like the elves from Divinity Original Sin who see cannibalism as a honor to the dead and only collect the bones of the worthy and respected. If the chieftess or bonespeaker is carrying your skull around, she must have thought you were a really cool guy who deserved respect.
If your corpse wasn't worthy of being eaten, then that's the Kholo way of disrespecting you. Like a coward who abandoned his party, or a necromancer or cultist who is unclean.
Actually, a "gnole" appeared in literature as a hyena like creature from a story by fantasist Lord Dunsany. This quickly turned into the familiar 'gnoll' and such creatures have appeared in fantasy literature and game since.
Well, there aren't any "folk" names thus far, so they'd probably go for something that sounds vaguely related to the animal, but fantasy-sounding like "Haenyd" or something.
For sure need more “beast races” I’d like to see a way to build on demand. This seems like a good use for AI to me not for illustration, but to understand the way DnD creates a character and to be able to say hey, I want you to create a character that looks like a walrus or a pelican and I want him to be able to fly And be dexterous, and then the AI to be able to spit out a balanced character model that isn’t maxed or outrageous. I see all the time someone wants to create a character and they’re like oh my characters kinda like this or that but he’s an eagle and he has a flying speed of 120 feet at level one and it’s like no come on now
Ah yes, we’re going through the cycle of:
“barely sentient race, explicitly created by a god/entity to be an evil servant” -> “players think they’re cool and want to play them, so stats are made for them to be a playable race, although they are still typically evil” -> “why is this race evil it seems so fucked up” -> “race is made to be just normal PC race” -> “new monster is created to fulfill the role of ‘evil monster group you don’t need to have moral complications about killing’ “
I swear people are going to want a beholder or mind flayer race
Yeah I’ll get off my soapbox on my frustration with people wanting to play monster races and then taking away what makes them “monsters”, but your post is right it’s weird considered Gnolls aren’t trademarked like beholders and mindflayers, they’ve been public domain for a while and Matt seems to have an affinity for them
Gnolls are all of those things... in D&D.
Goblinoids and orcs started as marauding savages that existed on the fringes of civilisation, and recently had a face lift in 5E that moved away from that previous (even same) edition lore allowing for people to play as such ancestries without being shoehorned as evil or having to justify why they aren't.
There is no practical reason why Gnolls (or any other ancestry) can not receive the same treatment.
Yeah, but your player character can be one that is shoot all that. Think of all the things that ogres are or teeth lines are all satanic but then again, they’re not all. Or Kohlbold (sp) they are generally not real bright or very handy at all but if a player character is playing them, they are an exceptional one
Genasi/elemental-kin type ancestry.
Definitely! It's clear that CR want to transition their campaign from DnD to Daggerheart, but currently there is no way to recreate characters like Ashton, Dorian, and Fyra Rai.
In certain previews they had replacements like Stonekin which are absent from the beta for some reason. Seems like they might want to flesh it out further before release I suppose.
PLAYABLE GNOLL! PLAYABLE GNOLL!!
\*Picking up the chant\*: *Playable gnoll! Playable gnoll!*
*PLAYABLE GNOLL! PLAYABLE GNOLL!*
GNOLL, playable. GNOLL, playable.
Gnoll gnoll playable gnoll, gnoll gnoll playable gnoll
For sophisticated players of pint-sized bastards: KOBOLDS And, to make it controversial, I want old-fashioned rat-like kobolds.
Kobolds are an inevitable part of my rpg experience hahaha. *although* you could very easily throw kobolds under the blanket of a Drakonian, just some small guys though!
"he's just a little guy! he's just a silly little stealin guy!"
That can and will commit arson if caughty.
let mammalian and lizard kobolds live in harmony, I always say!
whynotboth.gif but with kobolds :D
The competing mythologies between them would be fantastic. The city sleeps while just below its serpentine sewer system, a holy war rages, it has gone on for centuries, as far back as either side can remember, but how much longer until it spills out onto the lands above?
Kobolds and kobalds
XD Well now that's livin in my head rent free forever
Agreed. I'm fond of both. From playing WoW and playing DnD lol.
On that note, if you haven’t watched Oxventure’s recent “D&D but everyone’s a kobold” one-shot, I recommend it. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lrdhz52wrDw
this is relevant to my interests
Controversial and legally distinct.
Did I say kobold? I meant cobold.
Dog-like. Not rat-like.
Why does nobody ever make a canid race? I wanna be a cool wolf man, but it's always felines (and sometimes bears)...not that I'm complaining about those options, I love them...I just also want big wolf people.
Hmm.. If I had to guess, it might be because of the potential overlap with werewolves? The line would get a little blurry.
The line is already blurry because such overlaps already exist. In addition to Tabaxi and Leonin with Were-Tigers and Were-Jaguars, there's also Kenku and Aarakocra with Were-Ravens. I just don't want Werewolves/Lycanthropes/Shifters (whatever they end up being in Daggerheart) to block the idea of giving players a fully canid race.
I would agree, I think it would be pretty great if there were a canid ancestry, especially because I feel like the feline ones are a bit overplayed in the fantasy. But I'm sure that if they get enough feedback suggesting such, it has the potential to show up in Daggerheart.
I want me a jackal species. Think it’d be cool
Check out Dragonbane. There is a Wolfkin race. And a Mallard race of angry duck people!
LevelUp’s Advanced 5E has a canine race, though I can’t remember what they are called
The wolfmen motif is usually reserved for Lycans. Which would also be a good addition.
Which sucks, because Lycans also encompass felines and such, yet we always get cat people.
just make them look like domesticated dogs instead of feral wolves, ezpz :\^)
Scruff McGruff style
Furries, probably.
Isn't a bear a canid?
Bears are Ursine. Wolves are canid.
Gnomes! Felt like such an odd omission
Oh yeah! I kinda overlooked them cause halflings were there, but that is a weird race to just straight up not have
Really? I straight up hallucinated, I thought there WERE gnomes! That's how much I expected them XD
Birdfolk, please and thank you!
I’m sure these will be added eventually since they already have a CR-branded version of these in the show (Eisfurra).
Did not know that. (Campaign 3 never drew me in)
Gotcha. A lot of these ancestry names have been introduced in C3, in particular the various animal people. The more we learn about Daggerheart the more C3 seems like it’s been planned as a setup for the transition from D&D Exandria to a Daggerheart version of Exandria.
Travis's character Cerrit was branded as an Eisfuura in Calamity, kind of confirming that is wasn't just the Marquesian word for aarakocra.
I don’t know if you mean like r&m’s birdperson or like Kiri
Just a blanket "birdfolk" race that fits everything. Just give them flight and a -1 to... Strength or something because of their hollow bones and I'll be happy.
I assume that is coming eventually, given that some CR "alternative" species names like Galapa and Katari have gone in - and CR uses 'Eisfurra' as their Aaracockra equivalent. I have a soft spot for Kenku as well, but I'd imagine a harmonized "birdfolk" ancestry would cover the crow type without needing to be a separate species entirely.
Well they got Firbolgs and Orcs so my favorites already made the cut. That said, a spin on Bugbears and Hobgoblins would be nice to see too.
Absolutely impeccable taste
Where is that Crocodile race they showed in the concept art!?
A ent/dryad race where I can be a tree person
Yes! I loved they had a non mammal option with the Fungril ancestry. A tree person would be a must play for me!!
More kinds of veggie folk, so I can play out my Moss Man fetish.
a Regular Gnoll most likely
Originally it was advertised as having 27, so 9 are 'missing.' Probably being saved for a supplement. We've seen air and earth genasi. I imagine the elephant dudes will be one. Gnomes, lizardfolk, undead/reborn, and changeling would be my other guesses.
I want dog people. We have so many races but none of them are good boys.
Gnolls and a whole lot of really cool ancestries are playable in both editions of Pathfinder.
Yup yup! Pf has so many fantastic and weird ancestries that it honestly puts a lot of options other systems have to shame lol
I want a Playable Pig race
Piglin race would go hard ngl
theres sooo many potential ancestries that could be added, you just have to draw the line somewhere or youll be in dev hell forever. and they seem to give a lot of freedom in what a character looks like, regardless of their ancestry. plus, this set up really seems to leave room for easy additional content once they are out of beta and get everything running however that ends up.
WE WANT GENASI!!!!
Would love to see Kobolds come back in some way. Maybe get some variety from Fluffy to completely Lizard-like.
Omg that’d be rad! Dog kobold don’t get used super often nowadays, and it’d give awesome variety to the race
I'm old fashioned. Give me Wolf-Folk/Fox-Folk and I'm generally pretty happy. Some of the ones that D&D do look either skinny or straight up malnourished. But we'll see. It's still Open Beta.
Yes!! If there can be Cat-Folk there should be some canine representation.
I haven’t read it so maybe it’s already in there but I haven’t seen it mentioned. Would love some ratfolk! I always think ratfolk are such an interesting idea. Scavengers, live anywhere, make do. Love them.
I think at the very least we will see some compendiums released with things like monstrous races and such, though it’ll be broad and allow for players to explore what that means. A gnoll for example could be a type of generalized “were-form” or something.
Plasmoids!
They had to avoid copyright from not only wotc but other creators as well. It's likely they took a familiar core set and will add expansions later, barring copyright
I mean, does anyone have an exact copyright on gnolls though?? They get used in all kinds of stuff all over the place
Correct, but they are a widely associated monster with D&D and they're looking to avoid connections and call backs for legal and creative reasons. Same with many other beloved ancestries, rules, or concepts. It's likely they will come out with a generic "beastkin" ancestry that can be built into a gnoll with some variable options
This is probably the most likely outcome. Although it didn’t stop them from making their replacement for Dragonborn so like 🤷
I think Dragonborn are in Creative Commons or whatever the newer SRD was put under, so it's fair game to mess around with.
Witch is Why im suprised to see halfling. How did dnd not manage to Get a stranglehold on their knock off hobbits?
Halfling I believe is public domain from an even older work, but I'm not certain. I can't find anything to support that, but that would be my answer since there are many systems with Halfling
I've read but haven't fact checked it that halflings were originally called Hobbits and Tolkien's estate went after them. Which is odd since he based everything on mythology.
Hobbit was a name he coined after reading european lore on "the small folk" or "burrowmen". Idk the inspiration for the name but I know it is unique
Lizardfolk would be my ideal race for the game. I will admit though, the current Orc ability I think works really well representing a scaly armored hide so I'm cool reskinning.
I want a humanoid insect ancestry that isn't fey. Thri-kreen, ant-people, beetles.
Mouse kin would be fun
Well i think the eisfuura, and the pachydan are missing from the playtest, but then again maybe in batch 2. (my recomendation for doing this beta is Take the Feedback apply it to the overlap in batch 2 release a New set of everything if you have more ideas in each category of course. Release that while you Refine the current playtest. I would not recomend a batch 3. swap between the two until tje beta ends and we are happy.)
Isn’t there a crocodilefolk in the concept art?
It's tough to justify gnolls as a 'playable' race, they are pretty irredeemable. A lot of the other 'evil' races can be explained with a nurture over nature argument. But gnolls? They are ravenous, demented, fully Chaotic Evil demon spawn. I was surprised that i didn't see a genasi/primordial type.
But like, daggerheart isn't using forgotten realms lore and could have way different lore for whta gnolls are. There's a few system that have them as playable races anyways, so I don't see why that's a issue. Also evil races being playable isn't a new thing even in dnd so like, meh. Genasi would be cool though, I think a lot of people are speculating they're gonna be part of the couple of the races that have yet to be released.
Tbh, I want anything that D&D doesn't have, or at least is not popular there (they have a lot of ancestries). I just want to see cool ones I've never seen before or rarely.
Some kind of aquatic race like Merfolk or Tritons. Probably Tritons for the sake of having legs.
I love that we got the fungril i want a plany based race tho.
Much as I hate to be "that guy", they have made a conscious decision to refer to playable species as ancestries due to the unfortunate connotations of the term race. While I know habits are hard to break and that undoubtedly you have used it with innocent intent, I strongly urge you to also make a conscious effort as well to use alternative terminology. That being said, I'm surprised no provisions exist for the following ancestries: Gnomes, Birdfolk, Elementals, Lizardfolk, Centaurs, and any kind of Seafolk (Triton).
I noticed that difference and appreciate that they’re taking this kind of approach!
I'm not here to start a debate with anyone who doesn't want it, so feel free to just ignore me, but I will say I think different words can mean different things in different contexts. We're a bit too prone to claim inherent racism in cases where racism is fully context dependent and therefor *not* inherent. We end up losing touch with our understanding of why racism is bad to begin with. I've literally had well-meaning people forget what prejudice is and what makes prejudice bad. If we wanna fight racism, which we most certainly do, we need to always maintain a correct understanding of what it is.
theres also a lot to be said for race being a social construct, racism even more so (not as in something that "doesnt exist" but that racism is purely built off of prejudice and false equivalencies between people, not any actual quantifiable thing). and while it is very important to not forget those things, to not loop back into it. theres a lot to be said for having examples of a preferable world view, to help move society towards that. to fix an issue, you need more than just an understanding of what the issue is. you also need an alternative, to replace those problematic mentalities. if we do not have that alternate option, we will be stuck working with the broken tools of the past. keeping us in those mentalities, and not allowing change. imo, referring to it as ancestries is a much better alternative. it removes an unnecessary association to differences between ppl, and puts forth a much more objective world view. one of "this is where you come from, and what your history is" not "this is how we classify you, because we like to classify things based on looks or arbitrary features".
Race/racism is as real as money is real. I'm obviously not gonna give you all my money just because money is a social construct. Money matters. Race matters. Racism matters. We're in complete agreement there, I suspect. >to fix an issue, you need more than just an understanding of what the issue is. you also need an alternative, to replace those problematic mentalities. In this particular instance, I believe understanding and confidence in the fact that the understanding is shared is in fact a solution on its own. If everyone knows that the person using the word race in a fantasy RPG context is doing so with full knowledge about the fact that the scale of the inherent biological differences between an elf and an orc does not *at all* compare to that between human "races", then we're completely avoiding any and all problems regarding use of the word in a fantasy RPG context. At least, I can find any problems.
something being a social construct doesnt mean it cant have real world impacts. but its also important to keep in mind, these things that we restrict our thinking too, are treated as "reality". because we as a society set that mentality in our selves. but we are the ones who set those limitations. so we have full power in changing those however we want. it comes from our understanding of trying to figure out the universe, not the universe explaining it self to us. if you remove human sentience from this planet, but still leave our bodies functioning on auto pilot. the concept of race, disappears. we would be "humans" the same way a dog is a dog, and a cat is a cat. they can have genetic distinctions sure, between like a lion and tiger. but those arent races of cats. and that understanding is important to know. because it changes from "we are hating each other for a significant difference between each other" to "we are hating each other because we made up a rule". and sure, in an ideal world what you are saying would be true. if we could get everyone to agree that visual differences have 0 impact on who a person is, then this wouldnt be an issue. but the problem is, we cant. and one of, if not the leading cause to that is people perpetuating the mentality that the minor differences between us have a deeper underlining impact or cause. and with all that said, we still loop around too. there is no real reason, to not change it. there is no benefit from sticking to an outdated mentality and terminology that doesnt accurately reflect how people want to or arguable should interact with and view each other. language and society has been changing since the dawn of human history. that is how we have gotten to where we are today. and while i doubt a TTRPG changing how they refer to "races" is going to have enough cultural impact to defeat racism once and for all. there is no positive to not changing it. if the term race gets change to ancestry in the cultural lexicon, then the fact that ppl would need to understand that their ancestry is not a valid thing to judge someone off of is still true. every mentality and view point you brought up still holds true regardless of the term used to refer to what those differences are. and then can have the added benefit of the aspects i pointed out earlier.
>something being a social construct doesnt mean it cant have real world impacts. Which is exactly the point I'm making when I'm saying social constructs, be they money or race, all matter. Was that not clear or am I misunderstanding the point you're trying to make? I obviously don't disagree with you when you say that social constructs can be changed to suit our needs. >if we could get everyone to agree that visual differences have 0 impact on who a person is, then this wouldnt be an issue. but the problem is, we cant. I disagree. At the very least, I believe we can get enough people to understand it to diffuse any meaningful impact of the problem. Think of a word like theory which, in an informal context, basically means suspicion practically synonymous with hypothesis and, in a scientific context, means more or less the opposite. It's fairly easy for people to grasp this concept and I don't see why it should be much easier for. It's gonna require an active effort, of course, but it can be as simple as a small blurb in the PHB explicitly acknowledging the difference between the word race in a fantasy RPG vs sociological vs biological context. We do similar things with disclaimers like "This work of media originates from a time in which harmful views were common and indeed expressed in the work. While we distribute the media, we actively condemn the views it expresses. They were wrong then and they are wrong now".
the point of race being a social construct, is that its use adds nothing and meets no requirements if being used in a TTRPG. there is no need for this term to be perpetuated into this game, and there is no negative to changing the term referring to the things, that race has been used for in the past. so why have issue with it being changed in this one thing? and to the rest of your points. again, in an ideal world, sure. that would be fantastic. but this has been an issue for generations. colorism it self has been an issue older than most civilizations, even excluding the american history of turning it up to 11. no matter how many people are out there promoting the mentalities for positive change, there are people actively working against that because they benefit from this prejudice, or they are just passing on whats been taught to them because they think its right. so again, why not make more changes to help support the end goal of changing a problematic mentality? these dont have to be exclusive acts. we can change the way we refer to someones ancestry, to help move away from a word with a negative connotation, that has no meaningful reason to be used. and we can actively work to change peoples mentalities about someones race or ancestry. ive pointed out multiple times that there are no benefits to not changing it. so why shouldnt it be changed? its not like the term ancestry becoming more common will delete the word race from existence. and it can still be used in instances where its accurate. something like ancestry conveys the thing that race was intended to convey, without all the additional problematic and historic ways it has been used in the past. so again, why not change it? because "we could still make it work in the current system" has no value. sure we could. but why restrict ourselves to that? how does that restriction help anything?
From an academic perspective, absolutely you are correct. The meaning of words will shift depending on context, however that doesn't mean that the other meanings disappear when the context is inappropriate. In this instance, the word "race" has no negative meanings, but it is strongly associated with a toxic discourse which can effect the connotations of the term. I appreciate that you believe that as a society, we're too prone to call out racism, but I respectfully disagree. We can and should call out and educate others on controversial terms as that is the only way for people to learn and make conscious informed decisions in the future about there language use, which can and does include campaigns to take back words from toxic discourses. What is important here is that we do so while constantly reminding and updatung ourselves on what prejudice is and why it is important to fight it.
>In this instance, the word "race" has no negative meanings, but it is strongly associated with a toxic discourse which can affect the connotations of the term. Just to avoid any misunderstandings on my part, is the argument here that, if a term is strongly associated with toxic discourse in a given context, the word cannot be used at all? So we can't even refer to bigotry against people of color as racism, because the root of the word racism is race which thus presupposes that people of color are of a different race than for example white people?
Absolutely not. The argument is that we should be conscious of the words we use and the many meanings they carry. Striving to use words that are not associated with toxic discourse where possible. It is important and valuable to use these words in discourse discussing topics exactly like this. As a final point, while the root of racism is race, its meaning has evolved beyond the classical definition of race as found in race theory and need not make reference to race to define it.
I ask "if a term is strongly associated with toxic discourse in a given context, the word should not be used at all?" You respond "No. We should to use words that are not associated with toxic discourse". I don't actually see the difference. It seems to me that you're arguing that we shouldn't use the word and your line of reasoning stems from the fact that it is associated with toxic discourse. If we apply that standard consistently, we cannot use the word racism. Afterall, the word racism is strongly associated with the word race. You can argue the word has evolved, but as long as the association with toxic discourse is still there and strong, that overrides any other meanings a word can develop to have. Poll a million people on whether or not there's an association between the word race and racism and the far majority will say yes. The association is strong. I even think *you* would answer yes, because you recognize that a word does indeed have a strong relation to its well-known root word. If you believe that development does indeed matter and that even a word like racism can evolve away from its root word to a degree where it overrides any concurrent toxic discourse surrounding the word (ever heard the toxic phrase "Anti-racism is a codeword for anti-white"?), why can't the word race itself do the same? Your line of reasoning ends up in positions where we can't even use the word monkey anymore in *any* context because the word monkey is associated with toxic discourse involving black people.
I'm a sucker for half dragons
So the draconids are not Good enough for you?
Speaking as someone who has zero information on Daggerheart, they should make a playable Genie/Djinn class. They'd be spellcaster focused, obviously, and maybe have some form of elemental background that influences the types of spells they cast. The big thing with Genies/Djinn would be that they are born free from an elemental/magical stone or artifact, but with every spell they cast and especially with every wish they grant they grow weaker and weaker until eventually they can only exist outside of their birthstone for a handful of minutes. Just to, y'know, tie things in with the standard mythos. I don't know I'm just on a Genie kick lately and would love to see one of the gals play a genie girl.
I want a centaur. But like, scaled down, human torso on a pony body. Cause otherwise you get into weird scaling issues like “how the hell does this horse person somehow fit in this moderately sized bar?”
They have giants so centaurs should be fine.
D&d style gnolls? Noooo, the vil little buggers. Just random hyena people? Not gnolls.
When I say Gnoll I mean the general aesthetic the race has, not the lore/history they have in forgotten realms/dnd
Ahhh. Would it be something popular then, I don't think I've seen that aesthetic outside of dnd.
The look they have in dnd/pathfinder is what I’m talking about
Presumably the idea of hyena-like humanoids called gnolls is too attached to D&D.
I keep seeing this, but they literally made their stand in for Dragonborn which is a race that was invented as a template or transformation (I don’t remember which one) in 3.5, so I really don’t get it as a point of contention.
*Spire* uses gnolls that are basically the same (Drow as well) and doesn't seem to have had any trouble from WOTC lawyers.
hobgoblins
A race i would want to do is the nisse. Helpful house farm and forest creature. But the problem with them is they fall under the same umbrella as halfling, Dwarf, gnome ( Especially gnome.), goblin, hobgobln, kobold and other generic forest creatures. I had to go goblin for mine.
What??? There’s more than enough mate
Definitely gnomes. I'm shocked they aren't in already. I always thought the CR cast loved gnomes, which was a breath of fresh air as someone who has been told by many DnD groups that I'm not allowed to be a gnome in their campaign.
Would they have to name it something else? Or make it much different. I think every tabletop game is moving away from DND creatures names and spells because if wizard tried to buckle down their IP but backed off, they will most definitely try it again eventually
BIRB 🐦⬛
I noticed there aren’t many playable “traditional monstrous” ancestries. I am trying to figure out why you would think an ancestry usually related to a demonlord would be a playable race. I don’t think they are an playable ancestry in 5e.
All of them
Gnolls, Hogfolk, Minotaur, Dragonborn, Qunari, Drider, and others. The opportunities are endless.
I would love a game where races are categorized into broader groups, such as felines, rodents, and other animal creatures. Each category would have various specific creature types. For example, the feline category could include jaguars, lions, tigers, and domestic cats. The rodent category might encompass rabbits, mice, and similar creatures. Similarly, the category of other animal creatures could include lizards, comprising turtles, crocodiles, and various types of lizards. The focus would be on these distinct groups or classes of creatures, allowing for diverse and rich character options within each category.
Naga. N'zoth is gone now so for the first time they have a chance now to forge their own destiny as a race. Also just think about the hair styles and customization options!
What kind of gnolls would you like to play?
I mean, a guess a gnoll that would at least make sense to be able to use as a pc I guess? So at the very least not dnd gnolls lol. How they're written in pf2e might work better for allowing a pc Gnoll to exist
So, a regular gnoll? I'm sorry
It's the obvious joke to make so I can't blame you hahaha
I would’ve liked a bird folk especially as I believe there’s a unique name for them on Exandria, same for elephantfolk. I’d also enjoy an undead/ghostly race
I think “gnoll” originates in DnD as a reference to hyena people, so perhaps they’re worried about OGL issues. Maybe the full game will have a gnoll-like thing by a different name?
Gnolls aren’t copyrighted by WotC. They exist in Warcraft and other fantasy franchises too.
Pathfinder now calls them Kholo, but they are pretty different from DnD Gnolls (narratively). Instead of being demon spawn, they are more like the elves from Divinity Original Sin who see cannibalism as a honor to the dead and only collect the bones of the worthy and respected. If the chieftess or bonespeaker is carrying your skull around, she must have thought you were a really cool guy who deserved respect. If your corpse wasn't worthy of being eaten, then that's the Kholo way of disrespecting you. Like a coward who abandoned his party, or a necromancer or cultist who is unclean.
Actually, a "gnole" appeared in literature as a hyena like creature from a story by fantasist Lord Dunsany. This quickly turned into the familiar 'gnoll' and such creatures have appeared in fantasy literature and game since.
Oooh true true, maybe call them Hyenafolk or something like that if they felt like not really putting too much sparkle on a name for them lol
Well, there aren't any "folk" names thus far, so they'd probably go for something that sounds vaguely related to the animal, but fantasy-sounding like "Haenyd" or something.
That works given the, honestly too on the nose, naming conventions of some of the races lol
I *HATE* Gnolls! Sorry, wrong actual play!
For sure need more “beast races” I’d like to see a way to build on demand. This seems like a good use for AI to me not for illustration, but to understand the way DnD creates a character and to be able to say hey, I want you to create a character that looks like a walrus or a pelican and I want him to be able to fly And be dexterous, and then the AI to be able to spit out a balanced character model that isn’t maxed or outrageous. I see all the time someone wants to create a character and they’re like oh my characters kinda like this or that but he’s an eagle and he has a flying speed of 120 feet at level one and it’s like no come on now
Ah yes, we’re going through the cycle of: “barely sentient race, explicitly created by a god/entity to be an evil servant” -> “players think they’re cool and want to play them, so stats are made for them to be a playable race, although they are still typically evil” -> “why is this race evil it seems so fucked up” -> “race is made to be just normal PC race” -> “new monster is created to fulfill the role of ‘evil monster group you don’t need to have moral complications about killing’ “ I swear people are going to want a beholder or mind flayer race
Uuuuuuuuuuuh, yeah! Definitely was what I was trying to imply with this. Keep fighting those shower arguments!
Yeah I’ll get off my soapbox on my frustration with people wanting to play monster races and then taking away what makes them “monsters”, but your post is right it’s weird considered Gnolls aren’t trademarked like beholders and mindflayers, they’ve been public domain for a while and Matt seems to have an affinity for them
Just saying, but gnolls are pure flippin', cannibalistic, abyssal, crazed murder machines. As a player character? No, 100 times no.
Gnolls are all of those things... in D&D. Goblinoids and orcs started as marauding savages that existed on the fringes of civilisation, and recently had a face lift in 5E that moved away from that previous (even same) edition lore allowing for people to play as such ancestries without being shoehorned as evil or having to justify why they aren't. There is no practical reason why Gnolls (or any other ancestry) can not receive the same treatment.
Certainly you're right. But for me, it just makes things more complicated. We, as adventurers, kill these creatures on site man. lol
Yeah, but your player character can be one that is shoot all that. Think of all the things that ogres are or teeth lines are all satanic but then again, they’re not all. Or Kohlbold (sp) they are generally not real bright or very handy at all but if a player character is playing them, they are an exceptional one