Don't beastfolk just fill all the possible nonhuman roles you could want for TTRPGs?

Elves, dwarves etc. only have lasting power because of Tolkien. All popular TTRPG 'fantasy' races are just humans with exaggerated traits anyway. When people go too weird as a counterreaction to that, it turns people off. But since time immemorial humans have been emphasizing natural traits by associating them with animals: animal spirit worship, animal-headed gods, medieval heraldry etc.

Isn't it just easier to use wolf people, ox people, cat people, tapir people and so on and on to fill all your nonhuman fantasy people needs?

Yes but /tg/ isn't ready for that

>>96139293 (OP)
Species are like races on earth. Sometimes you just want to play something humanoid, but different. Plus, a lot of normies don’t like anthropomorphic animals.

I love beast races because my games never have them and that alone stops all furfaggots from ever sitting at my tables

>>96139293 (OP)
I tried thinking once what kind of animal-person each "classic" D&D race responds to. Elves seem to be fox people, halflings maybe something like mouse or badger people, dwarfs I guess mole people? Orcs can be either pigpeople or maybe something related to baboons.

>>96139333
This is pretty much the answer. People like playing characters that are more human-like. Elves just look like humans with weird ears, but fantasy gets a lot of mileage out of them.

Beastfolk are cool af tho.

>>96139293 (OP)
No, it's shit colored. It's less creative to just make things animals, and it's even cringier to lie and claim that fantasy races are humans with exaggerated traits.

The reason that this is cringe is that it is human nature to anthromorphize nonhuman things as a way of rationalizing expanding in-group preference to non-humans. So not just fantasy races, but LITERALLY EVERY LIVING ORGANISM we interact with becomes either a human with exaggerated traits, or an enemy.

Of course you are a retarded furry so you don't know what racial friend-enemy distinction is, because your mother while pregnant was kicked by a particularly ignorant horse--but mine was not.

>>96139442
>The reason that this is cringe is that it is human nature to anthromorphize nonhuman things as a way of rationalizing expanding in-group preference to non-humans. So not just fantasy races, but LITERALLY EVERY LIVING ORGANISM we interact with becomes either a human with exaggerated traits, or an enemy.
This is honestly a pretty interesting point and not something I'd previously thought about, so I appreciate you posting it even though you also mistakenly call me a furry.

>>96139381
Orcs are definitely pig or boar people by the classic D&D aesthetic, which is why they are that so often in Japanese shit too.

>>96139293 (OP)
There's nothing wrong with generic Tolkien-inspired fantasy, though. There is something very, very wrong with encouraging furfaggots like yourself though.

>>96139293 (OP)
It would all be fine but then furries came into existence and now we have to shame, distance and point fingers.

>>96139293 (OP)
Not a furry, so no.

>like the concept of beast folk
>it's forever tainted by furfaggotry
I just make them anime style if I do it at all. Just give regular people animal ears and a tail.

>>96139407
>People like playing characters that are more human-like.
To be fair the nips figured out the perfect compromise.

>>96140133
Warhammer Beastmen dont have a lot of furry fans either

In the games I run, I usually give elves animal ears and animal tails, and reserve the traditional pointy-eared look for half-elves.

Elves already have nature-themed associations, so I do not find this to be too great a stretch.

This is a very 5e D&D player facing argument.

The point of tolkien races in the books is that they are their own thing and you discover their history and traditions and weirdness. Like someone from america going to europe and seeing all those bizarre castles that meant something at some point but now are either trash on the side of the road or a fancy tourist trap. And you can spend a lifetime learning about their history or judging how they are used now, any take can be fun for you.

Animal race lacks all of that. It's just a flavor to jumpstart your role play. It is just a human with exagerated traits and you can play a human with exagerated traits. They bring nothing to the world. When a japanese property tries to find a middle point between both things they end up with
>the fox people are japanese
>the dragon people are chinese
Not only they still might as well be people, but you're making the setting less interesting by making it just like real life but every nation has a single personality type.

Now, people tend to play 5e this way. They pick a cool race, maybe one that gives them cool buffs, and at most add a single personality trait vaguely related to the drawing they saw. Even WotC thinks this way when they add races with no justification of what they are, how the behave, where they come from or what's their deal; like their take on plasmoids. No take.

It's like character creation in an action game. Actrion games are fine, playing in a way that is fun for you is fine. But no one wants to spend time making a game where the lore is whatever, weirdos exist and it doesn't affect anything. That's something an illustrator does, not a game designer or module writer. That's why you don't see it in games or modules.

>>96140245
>Animal race lacks all of that
Really nigga?

>>96140245
>This is a very 5e D&D player facing argument.
No, you're just mentally ill. I made the thread and I literally mainly play rules cyclopedia D&D, swords and wizardry and ACKS and favour race-as-class.

You might have an argument if you had said D&D instead of '5e D&D' and also if you hadn't done some weird America vs. Europe thing (I'm European).

>>96139293 (OP)
no, that shit is irretrievably ruined.

>>96140415
yes
that's a human depicted as an animal to make evident their traits. It doesn't have an independent culture, magic, history and so on.

>>96140446
I didn't do an america vs europe, I was using a tourist's experience as an example of interacting and being interested with a culture that doesn't relate to yours. It's an american but tall and smug or an american but short and quick to anger, it's a different independent thing with its own logic.

And it's a very 5e player type of argument, all the time they treat races as flavors of human so they see no issue mixing and matching because there is nothing besides a vague tone. I'm sorry you made a 5e type beat.

>>96139293 (OP)
Yes, but furries ruined it for everyone.

>>96139293 (OP)
What are some more obscure creatures and beings from myth and folklore, like picture related, that would make great races for fantasy settings?

>>96139293 (OP)
Or just make regular Humans super aliens and have all your animal eared people be the normal people.

>>96141039
Nommo, who are basically Deep Ones (fish-people aliens that interbred with humans) but real. Their descendants are even called the Dogon!

>>96139293 (OP)
>Don't beastfolk just fill all the possible nonhuman roles you could want for TTRPGs?
Sure. Humans or stick figures could, too. Do what you wanna do at your table, anon.

>Isn't it just easier to use wolf people, ox people, cat people, tapir people and so on and on to fill all your nonhuman fantasy people needs?
Look at the book for the RPG you're playing. What's in it? That's what's easiest.

>>96141073
Based and Arknightspilled.

>>96141073
Does she have another set of human ears under the hair besides the animal ears? Elsewise how is she wearing those headphones?

>>96141215
I don't know. Probably not.

>>96141242
Now post my wife Lappland who is pertinent to this topic

>wake up in a king size bed on a sunny morning
>I'm between two snow-white ratgirls in sheer negligee
>need to get up without waking them to get breakfast
>realize one of the two has her legs locked over mine
>look at the situation
>"fuck, that's a lot of muscle"
>manage to sneak off the bed
>approach door quietly
>"where are you going"
>it's the leglock girl
>she's a bit scary desu
>I say "did we have sex yesterday"
>"we were saving it for the morning"
>"oh"
>she comes close and licks my neck with a little breathy moan
>wake up
I'm not even making it up. I've been thinking about it all day. godfucking damnit this was a prank from God

>>96139333
>Plus, a lot of normies don’t like anthropomorphic animals.
And a lot of normies don't like elves or dwarves.
Or don't see them as anything but "annoying rich guy" and "drunk uncle".

>>96141253
On it.

>>96139293 (OP)
>Don't beastfolk just fill all the possible nonhuman roles
Don't humans?

>>96140158
That's because they're savage animal people instead of Briar Rabbit

No, and you have mental illnesses. Elves and dwarves have staying power where furfaggot shit doesn't because Elves and dwarves are cool, fag shit isnt.

>>96141577
>Elves and dwarves are cool
Nah, they are boring and massively overused.

Non-humans in media are actually just setdressing that no one really gives a fuck about, this has always been the case.

>>96141763
But isn't that part of what makes fantasy's appeal?

>>96142130
chances are anon's fantasy is a world where everyone looks like his cousing and he can kill anyone who doesn't

>>96139293 (OP)
We have a worldbuilding general. Go there next time you have something retarded to say.

>>96140158
>>96141564
Do warhammer beastmen rape?

>>96141395
>least mentally ill coomer

>>96145403
Does Balthazar Gelt like gold?

>>96139293 (OP)
>beastfolk
furshit.

Question... what's the best class to use with a Harengon?

>>96139293 (OP)
You should try being creative for once, instead of slapping a wolf head and limbs on a human torso, making it behave like an irl wolf, and calling it a day. Besides, even people who do like them won't use them to avoid being associated with furfaggotry, as evidenced by this thread.

>>96140158
>>96145403
I thought Warhammer was associated with killing furries and that was thanks to FlashGitz.

>>96141577
>Elves and dwarves are cool
lmao what
they're shit and will always make a game look like cheap bootleg versions of lotr
plus most shit media just make every dwarf the same character and every elf either a smug aristocratic faggot or a retarded coombait slut.
even making them more complex doesn't remove the baggage of elves and dwarves being shit.

>>96140149
>the perfect compromise
>posts abysmal dogshit

>>96139381
>Orcs can be either pigpeople
Always have been.
>>96139293 (OP)
Furries go to /trash/.

>>96140149
>everyone is human, some of them wear cheap trinkets from Temu.

>>96139311
fpbp
/thread
New thread topic: how does a post-human sci-fantasy setting deal with the physical forms of the players?

>>96140008
Oh man, you think furries are bad, wait till you find out about anime.

>>96149107
nta but anime got mainstream and lost a lot of edge while the furry scene became increasingly demented and filled with actual bestiality fags
moeslop is cringe but harmless

>>96149366
I don't find that true in the absolute sense. By being mainstream and more "accepted" it often results in the more obnoxious types to become way more uppity.

>>96149083
Whatever they want, because changing your body is as easy as changing your clothes.

>>96139293 (OP)
The problem is that they become <animal> people, which leads them to be generic. An elf is "a human with long ears," but there's also enough personality baked into the idea of "elf" that they feel unique.

In contrast, "wolf people" or "cat people" are just people with wolf or cat traits. The approach tells you everything about them, and it leaves them feeling derivative. They need some kind of twist to make them unique.
For example, werewolves are classics in folklore because they're not just wolf people, but people cursed to be both wolves and humans and thus neither. They have to navigate dual identities, and a lack of control over their animalistic behavior. Now, you have something more than "wolf people," you have "werewolves."

>>96149639

>>96150588
I see this sentiment a lot, though in reality other races like the usual elves dwarves etc. essentially act like humans too most of the time no matter how much someone tries to dress it up. I see it a lot in fact here on /tg/ and often the argument becomes very stupid, like if any non-human acts even a little human then that means they are just a human but worse, and thus unnecessary.

>>96150664
>elves dwarves etc. essentially act like humans too most of the time no matter how much someone tries to dress it up
Elves and Dwarves have more diverse aesthetic and narrative themes, however.
For example, a stereotypical dwarf has a long beard, likes drinking beer, lives underground, mines for a living, believes in honor and family, and is short.
Similarly, a stereotypical elf has long, pointed ears, a graceful build, loves poetry and music, lives in trees among nature, and is well-versed in magic.

With both cases, the individual characteristics won't suddenly evoke "elf" or "dwarf," because humans can have most of these things. However, putting them together yields a distinct blend that is different from a normal human.
In contrast, a wolf person would have a wolf-like appearance and wolf-like behavior. There's no depth or distinction there, just the animal.

When people talk about "acting like humans," that's all they mean—too many non-human races feel like humans because they don't have anything making them feel different from humans outside of cheap gimmicks.

>>96141039
You don’t see yokai much outside of anime and manga.

>>96139293 (OP)
What are some types of animals that you wish you saw as beastfolk more often, are there any species that are particularly underrepresented/underutilized?

>>96156326
I feel like birds and insects as a proper race instead of enemies is really rare. With beastfolk mammals are super common

>>96139293 (OP)
You could also just have interesting and different human cultures instead of turning everything into lame, samey races.

>>96156360
Why is it fags spew this as though it were some profound, revelatory choice? To me at least it's the most boring shit ever. Like, why even bother with fantasy then?

>>96150721
>In contrast, a wolf person would have a wolf-like appearance and wolf-like behavior. There's no depth or distinction there, just the animal.
This is ass-backwards. The animal, because it is real, is deep and distinct. Wolves have centuries of built-up mythology and cultural associations, reams of books about their behavior and psychology, and so much more material to draw on for inspiring characters and cultures.

Drawing on something real gives you so much more material to work with it's not even funny. Ars Magica has a deeper and more lore-rich setting than Forgotten Realms.

The actual reason for the dwarf/elf preference IS that they are relatively flat and easy to grasp compared to cats, rabbits, goats, foxes, wolves, etc.

>>96145403
yes
>>96148350
Thats 40K, fantasy has 3 races of furry beastfolk people, but furfaggots never pay attention to them. Beastmen are too rapey, Skaven are too repulsive, Lizardmen are too sexless

>>96160168
>be animal
>do things on instinct
Very deep indeed furfaggot. Also none of the peoples who used wolves, or any other animal for that matter, as symbolism for something ever wanted to dress up as them and sniff each other's assholes, just so you know.

>>96160941
Do the dog-people wag their tails when they're happy and curl them up when they're afraid? That also has to do with the smell of their ass (they're waving around/obscuring their scent). In fact, this is a great example: dogs wagging their tails is an instantly identifiable signal of their emotional state despite being totally alien from humans signals.

>uhm, it's not REALLY dog people behavior unless they sniff each other's asses
When Earthbound got localized into the West, they put Ness in pajamas instead of having him naked for Magicant. Sometimes you tweak things a bit to make them fit better with people's cultural sensitivities.

>>96161094
So it's just like the other anon said: a dog person with dog-like appearance and dog-like behaviour. No depth or distinction, just the animal.

>>96160208
>Skaven are too repulsive
>He don't know.

>>96161094
Why do Americans fear nudity but love ultra-violence?

>>96161210
Why do Europeans fear ultra-violence but love nudity?

what are some beastfolk that don't feel like they are just humans with a coat of paint?
the 40k beastraces, khajiit and argonians..

>>96161143
How come nobody ever separates human from ape behavior to see just how much of human behavior is actually uniquely human and not just a general ape or mammal thing?

>>96139293 (OP)
Kill yourself, furfag tourist.

>>96161143
>So it's just like the other anon said: a dog person with dog-like appearance and dog-like behaviour. No depth or distinction, just the animal.
An entire animal species, with a complete life cycle and unique social organization, has no depth or distinction, but a dwarf loving beer is super deep? Are you mentally retarded?

If you just define "if it's real, it's not deep," then fine, but by that logic actual medieval England is way flatter than Sword Coast flanderized city state #32

>>96139494
I would go further and suggest that this even applies to non-living things. People anthromorphize machines and places all the time.

>>96162446
I didn't say anything about dwarves, and there are a million ways to take something that exists in real life and make it cool and interesting in a fantasy setting. Making a dog man wag his tail when he's happy is not one of them.

>>96162787
Yes, if that were the only thing that made dogs different from humans, they would not be very interesting. My point is that the behavior (wagging tail when you're happy) a) requires no "educating" the players about what it means, and b) is completely alien to human behavior. If I describe a wolf person wagging his tail, then players know that means he's happy, without me having to lore dump them at all. Imagine, for example, nonhumans who snort on people they like. You'd have to explain that, but with tail wagging, you just say "he wags his tail" and everyone known what it means.

Wolf people instantly give you, as flavor, just by being wolf people:
- Carnivorous
- Hunters, of the stalking/stealthy/social type
- Very strong sense of smell, use it in identifying others, tracking, smelling emotional states
- Excellent hearing, poor vision
- Monogamous, litters of children
- Quite gender-egalitarian (minimal sexual dimorphism)
- Territorial
- Baring teeth, growling, sniffing, tails wagging, tails curled between legs, etc, as instantly identifiable body language that's different from humans

All with 0 loredumps whatsoever. And that's just off the top of my head.

>>96139293 (OP)
I use beastfolk because I want to have relations with them.

>>96162832
Diff anon, but what I'm getting from this is animal people are different and better because people know what animals do, which is of course different from how people know what dwarves and elves do.

In all seriousness though, what I'm understanding from your argument is that you think that since animals have well defined traits that we have historically ascribed meaning too, this means that they come as a fleshed out and instantly recognizable fantasy race, that avoids the genericisms of elves and dwarves without having to explain worldbuilding to players.

This betrays one of the biggest appeals of fantasy though, which is that it is speculative fiction. The entire point to many people is the ability to explore weird settings with different rules and cultures. Animal people simplify that to the point that it can suck the appeal straight out of it, especially if someone has spent a lot of time on fantasy fiction and already seen the same fucking race of naked mole rat people 12 times, with no actual differences between them other than how dwarvish they were in the details.

I think you can do animal head people right, though you are best off using their animal nature to bounce off something else. Skaven have Warpstone, and that is as central to them as their ratness.

>>96164507
My main point is the way that the real world always has more and greater depth of material than stuff you made up, and players can bring preexisting knowledge, and are generally more willing to learn about it (since it is real - people go to the zoo and learn useless facts about animals! They read history books of their own free will! They do these at roughly one billion times the rate they read the lore for your home campaign!).

>Animal people simplify that to the point that it can suck the appeal straight out of it, especially if someone has spent a lot of time on fantasy fiction and already seen the same fucking race of naked mole rat people 12 times, with no actual differences between them other than how dwarvish they were in the details.
Oh yeah, when I read fantasy fiction I definitely see a lot of naked mole rat people, I've gotten tired of it, time to read about something creative and new instead: dwarves and elves.

For real, there's not even a damn wolf-people race in 5e. It's not actually so common as to be played out.

>>96164507
To expand on my point, Elves and Dwarves being somewhat vague actually lends them strength in this area, since it means the avid worldbuilder has a lot of room to take them to new places. Elves are ancient, and thusly usually magic, wise, and in tune with the world/nature. Dwarves are productive and so they live inside their mines, carving impressive constructions from the mountain and forging artifacts. beyond that, elves and dwarves pretty much blank slates.

I also just prefer them to animal people arbitrarily, and if I feel creative and want to make my own races then I'm not going to simplify it with animal people, since I'd rather make something weirder.

>>96139293 (OP)
No furry. Beastfolk aren't replacing elves, Orcs, and other nonhumans. Go back to your porn now.
(I would like the idea of beast races but furries ruin any chance of that happening with them trying to fuck everything with a tail. Hell they try to get the talking animals too.)

>>96162832
And the point was that you're just describing a wolf. It's not deep, it's not interesting, you're adding nothing to make me care about it. It is quite literally just a normal ass wolf that walks and talks like a person. Even without the furryshit angle, that's just boring.

They are carnivorous and hunters, but what/where do they hunt exactly? Do they have weapons? What kind? Do they make them themselves?
They have lots of children, but where do they live? In a hole on the ground with their families? Or have they built some kind of society?
They are territorial, but what's out there that's making them this way? Humans? Other beast people? What's their relationship with them like? Are they at war? Do they have allies?

Plenty of people are tired of Tolkien elves and dwarves and will try to make them different in some way. Usually it's shit, but at least they're trying to move away from it. You stopped at "it's a wolf doing wolf things, but on two legs" and you're trying to be all high and mighty about it, for some reason.

>>96164507
>I think you can do animal head people right, though you are best off using their animal nature to bounce off something else. Skaven have Warpstone, and that is as central to them as their ratness.
This is the key point. Skaven are actually interesting because they have a unique identity distinct from their animalistic nature. I can also think of Dark Crystal's Skeksis, who are more than just bird people, or JRPG pig orcs, who have reached the point of being a standard trope.

>>96164616
>the real world always has more and greater depth of material than stuff you made up
But how much of that will players actually know? People will mostly resort to basic stereotypes and tropes when interacting with fiction, because they don't expect the author to know the finer details of wolf anatomy, much less to include that in their fantasy race.
"Wolf people" will basically reduce to the set of traits posted by >>96162832, and won't go beyond. The race devolves to performing a trope without pushing things.

>For real, there's not even a damn wolf-people race in 5e
Werewolves are in 5e, just not playable. Same with wolfweres.
As playable races, you also have: harengon (rabbit people), aarakocra (bird people), giff (elephant people), centaur (horse people), dragonborn (dragon people), hadozee (monkey people), lizardfolk (lizard people), thri-keen (preying mantis people), yuan-ti (snake people), and tortles (turtle people).
Incidentally, the most popular of the beastfolk races are dragonborn, kobolds, and aarakocra. Aarakocra are only popular for their flight speed, while the other two are not grounded in real world biology or real world species.

>>96165011
Okay, let me try to use bullet points since you are apparently deeply, deeply retarded:

- Wolves are inherently more complex than "vague concept of an elf", because they are real things, and thus have entire books written about them. Elves do have many books written about them, but they all contradict each other.
- There is nothing stopping you from adding more on top of wolf-people, just as you add more on top of elves. I was listing what you get from wolf alone; the equivalent for elves is much less, and much flatter.

>>96165043
>Werewolves are in 5e
Werewolves are not wolves. C'mon.

>>96165075
>Werewolves are not wolves. C'mon.
Neither are wolf-people

>>96165079
Okay, if you want to do the "autistic retard who forces me to explain every single sentence for you" act, I'll do it once:

Werewolves do not act like wolves. Wolves are not Chaotic Evil, do not have "fiery tempers," are not "ravening beasts," do not "emerge at night to spread terror and bloodshed," etc. Werewolves are not "humans who turn into wolves," they are "vaguely wolf-themed monster that acts nothing like a wolf."

>>96165107
>Wolves are not Chaotic Evil, do not have "fiery tempers," are not "ravening beasts," do not "emerge at night to spread terror and bloodshed,"
That's literally what people thought of wolves before we killed them all

>>96165075
The things that make wolves wolves don't correlate to a culture, history, manufacturing or anything you can interact with in a game. It's just a general nature that you translate to a human to make it just a dude with a certain personality. Fictional races have fictional things you an interact with and do stuff with them, so a dwarven city is different from an elvish one and most players won't need extensive details to get this. You'll get different products and services for them and have different adventure seeds.

You could get a wolf person and give them all that. But at that point it's not a wolf person, it's something else you attached to wolves. And if it's original, then you'll need a lot more work for players to imagine the same thing because there's no accepted concensus on what wolf humanoid society would be like.

Usually in manga it'll just be a real life society that didn't need the animal part. Dragons have chinese societies, bunnies or foxes are traditional japanese, and so on. The animal part is just an extra for cute drawings, but in ttrpg you're imagining things so the animal part might as well not be there (or you can imagine everyone as animals, it's the same)

>>96139293 (OP)
>Don't beastfolk just fill all the possible nonhuman roles you could want for TTRPGs?
No, and I say that as a furry.

Elves, dwarves, and other "human" species have their own niches and uses in ttrpgs. Beastfolk also have their niches and uses. But one cannot cover for the other without issue.

>>96161756
Because doing so would result in people finally understanding that humans arent special in regards to our actions or activities. Humanoid animal people are less different from humans than people would want and that scares them because of furries.

>>96164507
>>96165043
This is absolutely true. Pathfinder does this with most of its animal people and they are far more interesting than just "here's a wolf person, they act like wolves".

Sarangay are Filipino "minotaurs" who have soul gems in their foreheads. Their culture includes these as special elements, and their unique magic powers stem from them. They also get powers reminiscent of the legends they are based on. Far more interesting than if they were just humanoid carabao with a precolonial Filipino culture.

Anadi are giant jumping spiders with transformation magic (so they dont scare other people because giant spider), a culture obsessed with weaving, and a vague African culture that honors stories of Anansi without blatantly saying so.

Even PFs gnolls, kholo now, are more interesting than just being hyena people, with strange magics, an odd culture, and an actual place in the setting.

Each of these is not just the animal with a real world culture slapped on, but a humanoid animal with an interesting gimmick and a fitting culture that reflects both their land of inspiration but also the gimmick and the ways it changes it.

Which is more interesting, a fox person who is just a fox and a person from Europe or Asia, or fox people with transformation magic and a culture of trickery, with powers and feats that replicate stories from Europe and Asia? The latter, of course.

This seems like a good enough thread to ask this.

How would you handle nails/claws for beast folk and still allow for fine manipulation?

>>96165223
furries solved this ages ago. You do a cross between human fingernails and claws, a sort of flatter blunt claw.

>>96165312
I would still have it connected to bone but I think I would remove the ability to retract/extend the claws in favor of a more Human like hand which I imagine most furries would go with if they think that deeply on it.

Then again I prefer the sort of body type of pic related

What's the verdict on Thundercats style hybrids?

>>96165389
>Shnarf trying to be tough

>>96165389
thundercats could be cool if you use their lore. Was Mumra just some random alien from the planet they crashed or was he related to them?
I personally like their kind of gonzo style.

>>96165223
People can learn to handle both smartphones and old fashion typewriters with long nails.

>>96164616
The naked mole rat people are a hyperbole, though the "fucking" probably just made me sound legitimately pissed.

>>96165389
This looks awesome. So, yes is my vote.

>>96139293 (OP)
Now the truth no one is prepared for:
Special races that look exactly like humans, but either immaculate and angelical, or horrendous qnd demonic
No horns, no weird ears nor any quirky appendages.

>>96139293 (OP)
It would unironically be pretty awesome, but only if every furry suddenly dropped dead too. Not really interested to run a game where one guy fondles his dick under the table when I describe an anthromorphic sheep with zero sexualization.

>>96139381
Elves are actually swan people, and they're Finnish. You cannot refute this.

>>96150588
It feels like the traits, behaviors (both real and perceived), plus fables, for a variety of animal species, gives a lot more to work with than the slush elves have become

>le man but le wolf
>le man but le ox
>le man but le cat
>le man but le tapir
>...
>"wow so original"

Total OP death.

>>96139293 (OP)
>Elves, dwarves etc. only have lasting power because of Tolkien.
Elves and dwarves have staying power because they actually have developed depth. Sure, they don't have any in D&D specifically, but expecting any depth from a D&D player (or any American consumer) is like expecting a nazi to not hate Jews.

>>96172214
>le man but short
>le man but tall
>le man but skinny
>le man but short and fat
>le man but short and skinny

>>96165011
>wolves come with a lot of well-known attributes before you even start adding things to make them stand out
>"but it's not deep or interesting yet!"
Please quit the hobby

>>96172647
>before you even start adding things to make them stand out
The problem is that implies people add things to make them stand out. That doesn't happen.