D&D (2024) Which races would YOU put into the 50th anniversary Players Handbook?

[Scribe]

Now, if you'd actually like to have a discussion about this, rather than simply a duelling of crappy assertions, I'd be quite happy to engage. But if you're merely going to belt out a tired, one-line, no-thought argument, what's even the point of posting it?

I already have, we simply will never agree as I noted days ago.

If your solution is 'physiology doesnt matter, they are not real' then its simply not a conversation. In that scenario, yes, they can certainly be whatever you need them to be.

I'll continue to view it as I do, as there hasnt been a single argument since Tasha's, that has been convincing.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

That all sounds great. So we could do that simply by saying in the halfling description "Halflings and Gnomes often surprise those who think they are human children. They are vastly stronger for their size than a human child - in fact an adult Halfling or Gnome is just as strong as an adult Human , Orc, or Dragonborn!"

Sure. But that would make a lot of people angry.

I don't think we can say they have proportionally stronger muscles for their size than humans.
Doesn't a human the size of a halfling in D&D has the same range of strength and dex as one the size of an olympic gymnast, a basketball player, or an offensive lineman? Is it moving towards adulthood that makes one strong in D&D, not size or working out or whatnot?

Why not? Why can't they? There's nothing that prevents them from having proportionally stronger muscles.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If your solution is 'physiology doesnt matter, they are not real' then its simply not a conversation. In that scenario, yes, they can certainly be whatever you need them to be.

But I never said--and have never said--that physiology is completely unimportant.

I am simply saying that physiology is not absolutely determinative of what characters are capable of achieving, beyond certain relatively niche things like dragon breath, impossible luck, innate but limited teleportation abilities, flight, etc.

Whereas you are, very explicitly, making the argument that not having hard-and-fast limitations on what someone can do, simply because their physiology would be less physically adept in our world, causes absolutely all characters to be 100% perfectly identical with no differences at all. You have made this assertion in an extremely dismissive, non-discursive way ("Humans with funny hats it is.") I am saying that an actual discussion is, in fact, possible here.

To put my money where my mouth is and demonstrate why I think this is false, I will bring out my classic soapbox of dragonborn. Being extremely brief: MUCH faster development, better at healing (at least in 4e), different means of dealing with body heat, egg-laying, high-protein diets, elemental halitosis, etc. These factors should all bear out in their art (painting, poetry, music, etc.), their material artifacts (architecture/civic engineering, clothing, furniture design), their language (metaphors, accents), their food (materials, preparation methods, flavors), etc.

Not one of those things has any meaningful impact on whether a dragonborn can achieve superlative success through mighty thews or shrewd thought or wise words. Yet all of them individually, and certainly when taken collectively, make for a meaningful distinction from humans in general, and any specific human culture one might consider. Dragonborn might not be keen on chairs, for example, if they have tails (classically they do not, but tailed dragonborn art is at least as old as 4e dragonborn if not older)--this would make them more similar to Eastern cultures IRL where one usually reclines on floor-cushions rather than having knee-level frame furniture. Dragonborn wouldn't design prisons with ordinary metal bars as their primary deterrent because, y'know, elemental halitosis.

Unless there is something more to the dismissive "humans with funny hats" description, the only thing preventing fantasy races from being distinct from one another is laziness on the part of the people describing them, be it the game's makers or the person running a specific table.

 

[Cadence]

Sure. But that would make a lot of people angry.

They'll be angry anyway.

Why not? Why can't they? There's nothing that prevents them from having proportionally stronger muscles.

That might have been true when humans were just medium in the game. But now humans in the game can be the same size as the halflings and gnomes - and just like halflings and gnomes the humans who have the game classification small have no restrictions on their ability scores.

So it feels untrue to say halflings and gnomes are proportionally stronger than humans in general because they are now just the same as humans of the same size. So I guess I should adjust my previous suggestion to say:

"'Small' humanoid adults (Halflings, Gnomes, some Humans) often surprise those who think they are human children. They are vastly stronger for their size than the human children who will grow up to be 'medium' - in fact a 'Small' humanoid adult is just as strong as an any 'Medium' adult humanoid such as Orc, Dragonborn, and some Humans!"

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

They'll be angry anyway.

5e was specifically designed as trying to win back the people scared away by 4e. I think WotC is still trying to avoid scaring them off by getting rid of so many Sacred Cows.

That might have been true when humans were just medium in the game. But now humans in the game can be the same size as the halflings and gnomes - and just like halflings and gnomes the humans who have the game classification small have no restrictions on their ability scores.

So it feels untrue to say halflings and gnomes are proportionally stronger than humans in general because they are now just the same as humans of the same size. So I guess I should adjust my previous suggestion to say:

"'Small' humanoid adults (Halflings, Gnomes, some Humans) often surprise those who think they are human children. They are vastly stronger for their size than the human children who will grow up to be 'medium' - in fact a 'Small' humanoid adult is just as strong as an any 'Medium' adult humanoid such as Orc, Dragonborn, and some Humans!"

Say that Small humans also have that genetic quirk for some reason. It's a fantasy world. It doesn't have to adhere to real world genetics.

 

[Cadence]

5e was specifically designed as trying to win back the people scared away by 4e. I think WotC is still trying to avoid scaring them off by getting rid of so many Sacred Cows.

The Sacred Cow about size and strength has already been hamburgerized. This is just being honest about it ;-) But fair point.

Say that Small humans also have that genetic quirk for some reason. It's a fantasy world. It doesn't have to adhere to real world genetics.

When we're talking about a group that exists in the real world it feels like we'd want to wordsmith it really carefully (so I wouldn't say 'genetic quirk').

Maybe it is best to just gloss over it and not say anything.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I really have to learn to stop arguing with people who won't let go of topics that are done and settled.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm curious about that. Is it the "no more humans" or the "everything else"?

If you're still strapping on your best sword and shield before going underground to fight dragons with a small party of compatriots..

No, it was this bit...

Break the chains to pseudo-medievalism and "no way could that happen in real life.."

No Humans isn't any fun either, but removing a) a pseudo-medieval/ancient setting and b) any connection to reality is a bridge too far.

 

[Scribe]

Whereas you are, very explicitly, making the argument that not having hard-and-fast limitations on what someone can do, simply because their physiology would be less physically adept in our world, causes absolutely all characters to be 100% perfectly identical with no differences at all.

Nope. I've simply said have ASI in addition to other rules.

 

[Gammadoodler]

No, it was this bit...

No Humans isn't any fun either, but removing a) a pseudo-medieval/ancient setting and b) any connection to reality is a bridge too far.

To be clear, the latter bullets are some potential positive (to me) results of removing humans rather than goals pursued independently.

Mostly just tired of folks 'proving' what fantasy characters and societies are like based on often poorly executed Wikipedia research. Simpler to make a case of "this isn't earth; things don't work the same way they do on earth" when you don't have PCs that directly reference players' lived experience.

I don't have a problem with medievalism as a conscious choice. I tire of its place as the lazy default. And I think that once you remove reference to historical humanity, there is more room to explore how fantasy cultures would operate and organize themselves. Economic and political systems can get a lot more interesting and experimental.

I understand that, for some, these are grounding elements that help folks get on the same page efficiently. I think this is both a feature and a bug, as I think it also puts mental blockers in place that are not necessary in a fantasy game.