D&D General Flipping Race And Background Altogether

[Reynard]

It's the current language where even 'small' typed races are 'the range of human sizes' or whatever inclusive non biased language they arrived upon.

There is no eyeroll eyerolley enough.

 

[Yaarel]

It's the current language where even 'small' typed races are 'the range of human sizes'.

I took that to mean the Small sizes of 4-year-old humans.

 

[overgeeked]

It's the current language where even 'small' typed races are 'the range of human sizes' or whatever inclusive non biased language they arrived upon.

That was in a UA, no book, right?

There is no eyeroll eyerolley enough.

From the Fairy entry in Witchlight, which is listed as small size.

But the info about races includes the following text:

"HEIGHT AND WEIGHT
Player characters, regardless of race, typically fall into the same ranges of height and weight that humans have in our world. If you'd like to determine your character's height or weight randomly, consult the Random Height and Weight table in the Player's Handbook, and choose the row in the table that best represents the build you imagine for your character."

 

[Reynard]

From the Fairy entry in Witchlight, which is listed as small size.

But the info about races includes the following text:

"HEIGHT AND WEIGHT
Player characters, regardless of race, typically fall into the same ranges of height and weight that humans have in our world. If you'd like to determine your character's height or weight randomly, consult the Random Height and Weight table in the Player's Handbook, and choose the row in the table that best represents the build you imagine for your character."

I take that to mean that even "small" sized humanoids are the size that some human can be (off the top of my head I think the world's shortest adult was just under 2 feet tall), not that small sized creatures could be 7' tall.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's about averages. The average NPC goliath is likely stronger than the average NPC halfling. The PCs don't have to follow those rules. So a STR 10 character, no matter their race, is just as strong as every other STR 10 character, no matter their race.

I mean, according to the game, that halfling needs 1 pound of food and one gallon of water per day to survive...same as that goliath...same as that medium-sized PC centaur. That's wild. And apparently horses, being large, only need 4 pounds of food and four gallons of water per day to live. That's uhm...wildly under what they actually need. Especially if they're doing any work. PCs in D&D, especially 5E, are the magically-enhanced superhero exceptions to whatever sense of realism we have.

The one that gets me is magically regenerating all damage after an 8-hour rest. That utterly breaks any sense of verisimilitude I have.

It's a fantasy game about throwing fireballs and riding dragons and battling giant insects and rescuing princes. So...shrug.

I have to say, I really hate the "magical elf game" argument to explain away anything that doesn't make sense. It feels very dismissive. Unless there is a specific reason for it, even a fantasy world should follow real world rules. Now, those reasons can change a lot of stuff, but I still the reason needs to be stated.

 

[billd91]

So, according to you, essentializing race is...good?

Depends on what you're essentializing or what you consider essentializing. If essentializing portrays a character based on inherent traits, does that include size? Is saying that halflings are small essentializing? Is it essentializing to say that a pegasus has wings? Or that a medusa has snakey hair? They are inherent qualities. But is describing them really "essentializing"? Or if it is, is it doing so in a bad way?

Or is it really only problematic when we talk about their behavior or values as exhibiting some kind of inherent trait?

 

[Yaarel]

Depends on what you're essentializing or what you consider essentializing. If essentializing portrays a character based on inherent traits, does that include size? Is saying that halflings are small essentializing? Is it essentializing to say that a pegasus has wings? Or that a medusa has snakey hair? They are inherent qualities. But is describing them really "essentializing"? Or if it is, is it doing so in a bad way?

Or is it really only problematic when we talk about their behavior or values as exhibiting some kind of inherent trait?

Yes, saying a medusa has snaky hair is essentializing.

However, because snaky hair is unambiguously nonhuman, it has little or no reallife implications.

The essence becomes problematic when it is a human trait, like being slightly dumber or slightly uglier.

 

[Yaarel]

In recent Scandinavian folkbelief, the tomte aka nisse is a Small gnome-like being, say about 2½ feet, and is superhumanly strong.

So a gnome with Strength 20 (or higher) seems fine to me.

If that is the character concept, then no problem.

 

[guachi]

So if I understand you correctly, a type of gnome being described as very strong and given an 18 Strength is bad essentialism because it's a possible human trait but if the description gives it a 22 Strength that's fine because no normal human can have a 22 Strength.

 

[Yaarel]

So if I understand you correctly, a type of gnome being described as very strong and given an 18 Strength is bad essentialism because it's a possible human trait but if the description gives it a 22 Strength that's fine because no normal human can have a 22 Strength.

I doubt reallife Small people would be offended at associating with Strength 20. But still, design caution and player comfort are high priorities.

If a player wants a Small character who has Strength 8, that is fine. If a player wants a Small character who has Strength 20, that is fine.

Let the player choose.