Preface: Yes, D&D doesn't actually need more core races. This is just for those who like adding extra toppings to their pizza for kicks.

For those of you are familiar with 4e's roster of added core races, which ones would you ever consider adding to older versions of the game?

Personally I'm intrigued by the wilden because
A) their unusual flavor as the absolute newest kids on the block since they've only just come into existence. Elves and dwarves are often portrayed as the elder races, humans and halflings as the current movers and shakers, so there's thematic room for a group that is all potential and no established expectations.
B) Plant people can be amusingly alien.
C) They can disrupt existing power structures without actually being villains. What happens to your ancient elven cities when they suddenly have to contend with "immigrants" who sprung out of the ground through no choice of their own?

What about you guys? What's your take on dragonborn, wilden, revised gnomes, tieflings, revised eladrin, aasimar (deva), shardminds, etc?

Ok, my opinion:

dragonborn: I like them,and many dnd settings have 'lizardmen' in various forms. Fundementally, not really new at all.

wilden: Should be easy to fit into most settings; they don't really excite me though.

revised gnomes: I don't really like gnomes, so i am biased.

tieflings: They changed their appearence but I am fond of tieflings. Seems easy to fit them in anywhere.

revised eladrin: I like them and play on the strong connection to the fey realm.

aasimar (deva) Love them. Got hooked when I played a Deva character with a 'memory of a thousand lifetimes' racial ability.  Great fun when he stumbled upon the skeletal body of his previous life and had a flashback.

shardminds: Very setting specific I guess. Might be perfect, might seem 'wtf!?'

I like dragonborn because they seem to fill an "honor-bound martial type" niche better than dwarves, elves, or half-orcs do - at least it's a debatable overlap in the case of the dwarves. Trouble is they can step on the hobgoblins' toes a bit in that role.

Yeah, shardminds are a rough fit. they've got a good backstory and some funky motivations, but they just stick out at an angle more than any of 4e's other expanded options.

The one thing I dislike about both these races is their "word-word" names. I suppose I can steal the "dray" name for dragonborn from Dark Sun, but it's awful close to "drow". I don't know what to do about shardmind; it was sort of inexcusable the way they appeared in the same book as a class called the battlemind. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;736555I like dragonborn because they seem to fill an "honor-bound martial type" niche better than dwarves, elves, or half-orcs do - at least it's a debatable overlap in the case of the dwarves. Trouble is they can step on the hobgoblins' toes a bit in that role.

I didn't like Dragonborn until someone pointed out that they were basically D&D Klingons.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;736555I like dragonborn because they seem to fill an "honor-bound martial type" niche better than dwarves, elves, or half-orcs do - at least it's a debatable overlap in the case of the dwarves. Trouble is they can step on the hobgoblins' toes a bit in that role.

There is nothing "honor bound" about hobgoblins, so you have nothing to worry about in that regard.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;736555The one thing I dislike about both these races is their "word-word" names. I suppose I can steal the "dray" name for dragonborn from Dark Sun, but it's awful close to "drow". I don't know what to do about shardmind; it was sort of inexcusable the way they appeared in the same book as a class called the battlemind. :rolleyes:

Just call them 'shards' like I do.

The battlemind name is dumb.
They could have been called... I dunno, 'gatekeepers' or something and been given some sort of backstory where they watch the barriers between worlds and help prevent incursions from the Far Realm or something. Instead they just got a super generic name and super generic flavor.

Quote from: Old One Eye;736582There is nothing "honor bound" about hobgoblins, so you have nothing to worry about in that regard.

I dunno, for a while (when I started playing) they were sort of Samurai like. I remember having a figure of one with a samurai helmet.

Quote from: Old One Eye;736582There is nothing "honor bound" about hobgoblins, so you have nothing to worry about in that regard.

Huh, I don't know how, but I seem to have picked up some assumption that they were in 3 and 4e. I've certainly used them that way. I don't have the monster manuals with me to check right now.

Wow, did D&D really go until 4e without the "klingon" archetype in its basic player/NPC race lineup?

QuoteJust call them 'shards' like I do.

Good idea.

Regarding the battlemind, yeah, that was not one of 4e's finest moments, either in terms of rules or flavor. To be fair though, they really couldn't use the "watch the barriers between worlds and help prevent incursions from the Far Realm" line again because they'd already done that for a bunch of other classes (and it's part of the wilden's flavor text).

Quote from: Piestrio;736564I didn't like Dragonborn until someone pointed out that they were basically D&D Klingons.

I always thought that's what the Githyanki were.

Or maybe Githyanki are like Romulans to the Githzerai's Vulcans.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;736555The one thing I dislike about both these races is their "word-word" names. I suppose I can steal the "dray" name for dragonborn from Dark Sun, but it's awful close to "drow". I don't know what to do about shardmind; it was sort of inexcusable the way they appeared in the same book as a class called the battlemind. :rolleyes:

Draconian?

Or make something up that appeals.

I am never overlyy fond of the "word-word" naming. It allways feels too dumbed down or catchword-esque. Same for character names and equipment. etc.

The Dragonborn and the Wilden are good ones to port over though from what I've seen.

I prefer the Wilderlands take on Draconians - distant descendants of dragons with a faint purple or green hue to the skin and scales. Not a fan of the full-bore fire-breathing lizard folk.

The concept of tieflings is fine, hate the name. Makes them sound like a mischievous fey race, not demon-born.

Eladrin serve no distinct purpose. They're elves.

Quote from: Haffrung;736737I prefer the Wilderlands take on Draconians - distant descendants of dragons with a faint purple or green hue to the skin and scales. Not a fan of the full-bore fire-breathing lizard folk.

The concept of tieflings is fine, hate the name. Makes them sound like a mischievous fey race, not demon-born.

Eladrin serve no distinct purpose. They're elves.

More specifically they're high/grey elves as distinct from wood/wild elves. Which works for me, especially with the flavor they gave them.

Quote from: Bill;736461Ok, my opinion:

dragonborn: I like them,and many dnd settings have 'lizardmen' in various forms. Fundementally, not really new at all.

wilden: Should be easy to fit into most settings; they don't really excite me though.

revised gnomes: I don't really like gnomes, so i am biased.

tieflings: They changed their appearence but I am fond of tieflings. Seems easy to fit them in anywhere.

revised eladrin: I like them and play on the strong connection to the fey realm.

aasimar (deva) Love them. Got hooked when I played a Deva character with a 'memory of a thousand lifetimes' racial ability.  Great fun when he stumbled upon the skeletal body of his previous life and had a flashback.

shardminds: Very setting specific I guess. Might be perfect, might seem 'wtf!?'

That pretty much covers it for me. Except I have no clue about Shardminds.

I really love the new take on gnomes. I would play one actually.

QuoteOr maybe Githyanki are like Romulans to the Githzerai's Vulcans.

Shit, I never even noticed how close this parallel is!:eek:

Quote from: Marleycat;736758I really love the new take on gnomes. I would play one actually.

It's better, but still kind of fuzzy to me - instead of blurring the line between the dwarf and halfling it now blurs the line between the elf and the halfling. To me it just doesn't stick out enough yet.

Sometimes it just looks like the designers are struggling not to accept as core the most vivid and influential interpretation of gnomes to date - tinker gnomes. A lot of other fantasy game settings have just given in to the tinker gnome concept because it's so iconic and easy to play, so the fact that the game that invented the concept is resiting it comes off as rather odd.