D&D (2024) (+) New Edition Changes for Inclusivity (discuss possibilities)

[Weiley31]

I personally do prefer Species because of the science nerd in me, but I agree there are probably better options. Lineage seems like a good option. What would you call the subraces, though? "Race?"

Folk would probably be the best term and Lineage could be the Subraces. Or just keep Subrace really.

 

[Eltab]

I personally do prefer Species because of the science nerd in me, but I agree there are probably better options. Lineage seems like a good option. What would you call the subraces, though? "Race?"

Clan, folk, kith, or kin might work.
('Kith' might be the best choice because it is not commonly used in modern speech.)

The sub-races are (usually) supposed to have formed due to evolution-like processes - two groups of X moved apart and adapted to different conditions (plains vs forests) over time then expanded and met each other again; or a group went into tough terrain to hide, and stayed hid.
A few exceptions - ex: the Descent of the Drow - are divine intervention.
There might be a third category of differentiator events but I can't think of any examples off-hand.

 

[Fenris-77]

You should label this a (+) thread. It might forestall some of the inevitable threadcrapping.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Clan, folk, kith, or kin might work.
('Kith' might be the best choice because it is not commonly used in modern speech.)

The sub-races are (usually) supposed to have formed due to evolution-like processes - two groups of X moved apart and adapted to different conditions (plains vs forests) over time then expanded and met each other again; or a group went into tough terrain to hide, and stayed hid.
A few exceptions - ex: the Descent of the Drow - are divine intervention.
There might be a third category of differentiator events but I can't think of any examples off-hand.

I agree. Kith could probably work as a subrace for Lineage or Ancestry.

So far, it seems like we pretty much all agree that "Race" should change.

 

[Khelon Testudo]

Yes, I agree that it already does this. In my personal opinion, the section in a 6e PHB that describes each race should not describe the culture or people at all. I think that should solely be left for the setting books.

You'll need some default cultures, or otherwise you have a Player's Handbook that isn't a complete game. I suggest replacing "subrace" options with culture options.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

You'll need some default cultures, or otherwise you have a Player's Handbook that isn't a complete game. I suggest replacing "subrace" options with culture options.

Sure, the base rules would probably need some default info, but I don't think that it has to be in the Race section or the PHB. They could put it in the DMG, possibly.

 

[Khelon Testudo]

But isn't someone supposed to be able to play the the game with just the PHB? At least at low levels.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

But isn't someone supposed to be able to play the the game with just the PHB? At least at low levels.

You certainly can in 5e, but I don't know about other editions, or even if it was intended that way. It seems to me that WotC assumes that you will always have the 3 core rule books.

 

[Charlaquin]

I personally do prefer Species because of the science nerd in me, but I agree there are probably better options. Lineage seems like a good option. What would you call the subraces, though? "Race?"

I’d remove the concept of subrace. Make culture a thing and give them subcultures.

 

[MGibster]

Possibly remove alignment in its entirety. I personally don't think we should be getting rid of it altogether, but to keep it mainly for fiends, celestials, and the other otherworldly creatures.

I actually like alignment but it hasn't been relevant in any of my 5E campaigns. I think you can get rid of it rather safely without affecting much of anything.

Setting determining the culture and descriptions of the races, and not the base rules.

I've wanted this for years. But I think WotC is more keen on keeping things generic.