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

[Mistwell]

I just don't understand people who want "ancestry" and I will explain why.

I believe we already have one official type, and then we have a number of third party types and fantasy novels as well, which are a creature you transform into from another type. And that's not even touching on a spell like reincarnation, which currently transforms you from (for instance) a dwarf into an elf which has no elven ancestors.

And given we're living in a society which is accepting the concept of transitioning from one category of identity into another category of identity, I just don't see how "ancestry" can continue to work well for long. Because "ancestry" is all about who your parents or grandparents are, and not what you are now. And what you are now can have nothing to do with what your ancestry might be.

It's already becoming an antiquated way to describe beings. Why would you want to engrain that kind of concept for another decade or more, given you can already see it's heading out of practice?

 

[Scribe]

It's already becoming an antiquated way to describe beings. Why would you want to engrain that kind of concept for another decade or more, given you can already see it's heading out of practice?

So you propose what then? Because its not species either if we follow the logical path of what you are laying out here.

"Type" at the moment of question?

Are we trying to solve for the last 2% of the scenarios where Ancestry or Lineage, or Heritage would work fine for 98% of the population?

 

[Mistwell]

So you propose what then? Because its not species either if we follow the logical path of what you are laying out here.

"Type" at the moment of question?

Are we trying to solve for the last 2% of the scenarios where Ancestry or Lineage, or Heritage would work fine for 98% of the population?

Good lord you're in a thread with a gigantic list of alternatives in the first post. It's not like ancestry was the magical only "good" sounding one, it only has 30% of the vote with another choice at 43%.

I don't personally prefer species either but it's not nearly as wonky as ancestry. You can transform from one species to another. You can't transform from one ancestry to another - your ancestry is fixed by those who came before you. So yeah, species works better for this system.

Me, I prefer:

Creature Type: Humanoid (High Elf)

It's simple and effective and applies to NPCs and PCs alike.

And I don't think we're " trying to solve for the last 2%" as I think transforming from one type to another will become more common over time. It's probably going to head the way of multi-classing, with multi-typing, eventually. We're trying to plan for the future here and should choose a descriptor that works for a larger spectrum of fantasy possibilities.

 

[Scribe]

Good lord you're in a thread with a gigantic list of alternatives in the first post. It's not like ancestry was the magical only "good" sounding one, it only has 30% of the vote with another choice at 43%.

I'm quite aware, the question was what solves for YOUR scenario, no need for snark lol.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Ancestry probably has the edge of Pathfinder having gotten away with it already.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm quite aware, the question was what solves for YOUR scenario, no need for snark lol.

Most of them do. You phrased your answer like, "But if we don't use ancestry what else could we possibly choose?" as if we were not in a thread with 30 choices!

 

[Clint_L]

After 28 pages, can we all agree that"schmorp" might not be the word D&D wants, but it is the word D&D needs?

 

[Charlaquin]

Me, I prefer:

Creature Type: Humanoid (High Elf)

So, this is a great thing to put on monster stat blocks and PC character sheets. But, how would you phrase it it in the step-by-step character creation instructions?

1. Choose your Class
2. Choose your (what?)
3. Choose your Background

That’s an earnest question, I think if we could find a way to render “Creature type: Humanoid (elf)” in a way that would work in that context, it would probably be the ideal option.

 

[Mistwell]

After 28 pages, can we all agree that"schmorp" might not be the word D&D wants, but it is the word D&D needs?

I would still prefer:

Schmorp Type: Humanoid (Mountain Dwarf)

works better but sure.

 

[Charlaquin]

After 28 pages, can we all agree that"schmorp" might not be the word D&D wants, but it is the word D&D needs?

It’s the jargon D&D deserves, but not the one it needs right now.