D&D (2024) What new jargon do you want to replace "Race"?

[Cadence]

Sure. Drop the “evil” and “good,” and what you’re left with separating high elves from dark elves is akin tone. And that makes them different species? No. That’s not better.

I agree. If species is used, I'd do in the subgroup distinctions of all the classic D&D races. Describe their variety of appearances like the variety of human appearance should be described. [Edit: And probably if any other term is used to.]

If heritage or ancestry refers to the package of mechanical traits, literally inherited from the character’s parents, as “race” currently refers to, yeah.

As you note words have real world uses and connotations. Hispanic heritage month and Native American heritage month are both things in the US (presidential proclamations and all). I'm pretty sure we aren't going to ask what mechanical trait differences people classified as Hispanic or Native American get for their heritages. I have to believe one of the sensitivity readers will at least bring it up.

 

[Charlaquin]

But do cats and dogs in D&D have common ancestor?

Who cares?

Are you also opposed referring cats and dogs in D&D as being different species?

No.

It probably is just simplification to cover all sort of "wizard did it" cases and custom lore. But in established settings half-dwarves are not a thing, except in Dark Sun and they explicitly are sterile.

I don’t think it’s implied anywhere that any particular combination needs to be through non-sexual means.

Some species are more closely related, some more distantly related. Doesn't really change the utility of the term.

No, but the term’s utility does not, in my opinion, extend to describing D&D [not-races].

It does reflect it far more accurately than the other proposed terms.

It really, really doesn’t though.

That is unfortunate, but really not improved by alternate terms. The issue with the drow really isn't about semantics.

Sure it is. A Drow character literally does have different parents, ancestors, and inherited traits than a high elf does.

And that's why they should stop doing this. Write the species rules to be flexible so that they can reflect different subgroups.

Maybe. I think some of the differences we currently have would be hard to execute that way, but maybe it would be worth a try.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Who cares?

Not me, but given that you care about whether elves and dwarves do, I'd assume you would.

No.

Why? They after all might not have common ancestor in this world, and might even been created by different gods, thus according to you rendering the term species inaccurate!

I don’t think it’s implied anywhere that any particular combination needs to be through non-sexual means.

I don't think there is sufficient lore or though to go by to make any extensive conclusions. This is matter of setting lore anyway.

No, but the term’s utility does not, in my opinion, extend to describing D&D [not-races].

It really, really doesn’t though.

And I disagree. It is a word that describes groups of creatures with significant physical differences. That's what we are really dealing with here.

Sure it is. A Drow character literally does have different parents, ancestors, and inherited traits than a high elf does.

But one high elf also has different parents and possibly different ancestors than another high elf. Though if we go far enough back they will have same ancestors than the drow! If I was asked about my parentage, ancestry or heritage, I would not answer human. If I was asked about my species I would.

Maybe. I think some of the differences we currently have would be hard to execute that way, but maybe it would be worth a try.

Considering how radically they're rewriting the species rules it would be pretty simple, especially as there is no reason that every exact rule minutiae needs to be retained.

 

[Hriston]

Yeah, that’s what I thought. Has the same problem as species -> special, in that both are correct but are likely to call to mind their more common meanings. You could get around that by saying “features granted by your species/people” instead of “youe special/popular features.” But “Your ancestral features” is definitely cleaner.

I suppose one could sub in folk as the adjective used in association with people, e.g.: "Your character's people grants certain folk traits." Folk doesn't really have a singular noun usage in common English, contrary to what this poll suggests. It isn't correct in English to speak of "a folk". It's always plural.

My dislike of using ancestry as the term to replace race is it's a bit vague exactly what it's describing. Some people might share so-and-so as a common ancestor and thus share that part of their ancestry with one another, but might also identify with and belong to entirely different ethnic groupings.

 

[Cadence]

I kind of wonder if the escape is to have everything be people, but have it where someone can be plane/spirit/magic touched by one thing if they want. If you want something like an elf pick fae-touched; genasi, tiefling, ardling, and aasimar are just what they are; not sure what a dwarf was touched by, ale?

[I mean, yes, it changes the whole game, but I'm wondering if that works at all.]

 

[overgeeked]

I prefer ancestry to species but prefer species to the rest, including race.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I kind of wonder if the escape is to have everything be people, but have it where someone can be plane/spirit/magic touched by one thing if they want. If you want something like an elf pick fae-touched, genasi, tiefling, ardling, and aasimar are easy, not sure what a dwarf was touched by, ale?

[I mean, yes, it changes the whole game, but I'm wondering if that works at all.]

I was thinking at some point that genasi should be a feat. This of course would require that everyone gets a feat at first level. There could be other "origin feats" too that you can choose to layer on top of your species for extra weirdness.

 

[Cadence]

I was thinking at some point that genasi should be a feat. This of course would require that everyone gets a feat at first level. There could be other "origin feats" too that you can choose to layer on top of your species for extra weirdness.

I mean, why can't there be a genasi dragonborn or tiefling gnome?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I mean, why can't there be a genasi dragonborn or tiefling gnome?

Yeah, exactly!

 

[Bedrockgames]

That’s exactly the problem. The difference between elves and dwarves is not like the difference between Neanderthals and humans.

I would disagree. There is certainly a greater degree of variation to be found (elves living for hundreds to thousands of years for example). To me a dwarf and human are roughly approximate to that kind of difference. Obviously this is in a world where magic exists, so supernatural differences also exist here.