D&D (2024) How did I miss this about the Half races/ancestries

[MGibster]

Those individuals, sure.

If you then call all memebers of the same ethno-cultural group, or the same religion (this gets muddied by the absurdity of how evil gods work in D&D), etc, then no.

That seems fair. I just wasn't sure whether the word savage was off limits entirely or just how it's used.

 

[Kinematics]

It doesn't matter. When it comes to the fantasy RPG, Dungeons & Dragons, I will fight for the normalization of any genders and playable species to be able to have any ability score that can be achieved by the same ability score generation methodology in the core rules. Science (or "realism") be damned. There can be any fantasy explanation for these results that transcends the limits of our world's biological science (we only have humans in our world). And I think Wizards leans towards that way of thinking.

"Real world biology" is an argument I wouldn't even consider. If someone wants to limit female or halfling strength, or orc intelligence, they can force those exclusionary preferences into the microcosm of their own house rules or games. But it doesn't belong in the D&D core rules.

But, uh, that's not what's being argued here.

The fact of men being stronger than women (both in average and at the extreme) does not require that a game incorporate that. But the game not incorporating that does not mean that the original fact is false. There are certain assertions being made that the original fact is of questionable veracity (which is a lie), partly because they do not want that fact to be used to justify the inclusion of that difference in the game (which is a game design issue, not a "bad science" issue). However that's an (incorrect) assertion about reality based on what you want in the game, not the other way around.

~~

Every game incorporates realism, even down to something trivial like Chutes and Ladders — you're climbing the ladders to go up, and sliding down the chutes to go down, because that's what makes sense to minds that are used to the real world. Every game also limits how much realism is represented in the game. Chutes and Ladders does not try to model the exhaustion you'd suffer from climbing all those ladders, for example.

An RPG spends a lot more effort trying to model reality. (In D&D's case, that starts with the six basic stats.) Thus the question of whether men and women should have different default stats (or caps, or whatever) is perfectly reasonable. The answer, however, has nothing to do with reality, and everything to do with game design. Is this a modeling of reality that helps make the game better, more enjoyable, or more useful mechanically? (Note: "Is this more realistic?" may help in choosing between options, but is not itself a primary game design question. It's a modeling question.)

People who like creating models like putting numbers on things. Orcs are stronger, elves live longer, gnomes can't walk as fast, etc. When first building such a model, having different strength scores for men and women is not exactly controversial. Some games also have degrading stats as you age, or lower stats available for very young characters.

However the purpose of an RPG is not to parade around your model of reality. You want to simplify that model as much as possible, in the service of the game and the people playing it. You want to address pain points and polish rough edges.

Can a dead average 10 Str person carry around 150 lbs of gear all day without being slowed down? Of course not. But a more realistic model would be both more complicated and less useful for the enjoyment of the game, so a less stringent adherence to reality is used. Likewise, are different strengths for men and women useful to the game? If no, or at least no for the vast majority of cases and players (and especially if there are benefits to ignoring the distinction), then it shouldn't be included.

The same sort of argument has led (or at least could lead; actual motivations are fuzzy) to changes in how racial stats are allowed or assigned. Tasha's makes them freely assignable, while Level Up shifts them to the character's background. Both have a similar effect, and are arguably more realistic than the original, so an improvement of the model.

It's a modeling vs gaming issue, and the model needs to serve the game, not the other way around.

~~

Aside: I'm a computer programmer, and I build models of stuff all the time, so the above seems blatantly obvious to me. Every time I write a program, I'm essentially going through the same process: create a model to match the problem (or at least my understanding of it, which may depend on other people's understanding of it); figure out what isn't working right and adjust it; get rid of unnecessary noise (non-useful bits of the model); and optimize to make everything run as smoothly as possible.

 

[jasper]

I don't understand this line of thinking. 1."Pick a parent" only applies to mechanical abilities. It's not like any of the half races had unique abilities to those half races. A half elf doesn't have anything that an elf or a human doesn't have. So, your half-elf uses elf powers and my half elf uses human powers.

2.Do people actually define the race of their character by the abilities of that race? Is that what it means to be an elf? +1 to hit with a longsword and a spell?

1. Pick a parent reeks of out ancestry/species/race/bloodlines must remain pure.
2. hell yes. see Tasha's. See all the posts where people chose a race to min max a class.

 

[Hussar]

This is a game where major character aspects are mechanically represented, where possible. In such a game, the mechanics matter. You can cherry pick features all you want, but I think you know damn well that Trance and Fey Ancestry define “elf” in D&D .

I'm not being disingenuous. I would have thought appearance and the fact that you live virtually forever plus typically living in forests and various other behavioral cues like remembering past lives and the ability to shift gender would define elf. The fact that I don't sleep, per se isn't really all that important. Plus, "Fey Ancestry" only means a saving throw bonus which doesn't come up all that often. When's the last time you tried to use a Sleep spell on a PC? Heck, even charm isn't all that common.

So, no, neither not sleeping nor Fey Ancestry are "major character aspects". They're pretty minor details that rarely come up in play. And, again, the not sleeping thing is hardly unique to elves. There are quite a few races that don't sleep - war forged for example.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That seems fair. I just wasn't sure whether the word savage was off limits entirely or just how it's used.

Yeah, basically it’s…actions can be savage. Sometimes as a compliment! And individuals.

But my behavior can’t make white passing Hispanic dudes savages, as a group, and thus using it to describe an entire species of people who have free will and are otherwise being presented as…ya know…people, is inappropriate.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm not being disingenuous. I would have thought appearance and the fact that you live virtually forever plus typically living in forests and various other behavioral cues like remembering past lives and the ability to shift gender would define elf. The fact that I don't sleep, per se isn't really all that important.

A mind bogglingly wild claim.

Plus, "Fey Ancestry" only means a saving throw bonus which doesn't come up all that often. When's the last time you tried to use a Sleep spell on a PC? Heck, even charm isn't all that common.

What game are you playing?

So, no, neither not sleeping nor Fey Ancestry are "major character aspects".

False.

They're pretty minor details that rarely come up in play. And, again, the not sleeping thing is hardly unique to elves. There are quite a few races that don't sleep - war forged for example.

This is pointless pedantry. We both know that there is a huge difference between “going into low power maintenance mode for a while” and “entering a meditative trance wherein you can bodily relive memories” are not the same thing.

Living “forever” is a mechanic.

Living in trees and being mostly hairless with pointy ears is not definitive.

If that is all the “elf” I’ve got, and every actual mechanics points toward soemthing else, in a game where species have specific mechanics designed to represent what they are, then I’m not playing an elf.

 

[Hussar]

It's okay to call them savages if their preferred model of living is to scale my walls, steal my stuff, and kill my family, right?

I think the general issue is when you've decided to characterize an entire, free-willed, humanoid (as in not alien or from another plane or construct or undead) species as having a "preferred model of living". There's a word for characterizing an entire group with a specific behavior... it's on the tip of my tongue... my English is failing me... but I know that word exists.

 

[Remathilis]

I messed up mentioning a polymorphic species. It's derailed the entire thread into several pages of dnd gender strength cap discussion.

No no no, it's fine. If we're going to yank out all the steaming racism and put it on display in this thread, you might as well serve it with a steaming side of sexism.

 

[Hussar]

We're not litigating gendered ability caps. Come on. That ship thankfully sailed decades ago. It's not happening and it shouldn't happen.

But this discussion is illustrating why I think WotC is making a good move by getting away from a lot of the nomenclature around character creation.

I have to admit, I totally agree here.

Good grief, we're actually discussing gender based stat limits? This hasn't been in the game since the 80's. In a scale from 3-18, it makes ZERO sense. Remember, the only way you could get percentile strength in AD&D was to be a fighter (type). So, the strongest cleric in the world couldn't be as strong as a strong fighter. Bwuh? How in the world does that make any sense at all? In WotC era D&D it makes even less sense since we no longer have percentile strength.

Yet people will STILL try to argue for it. Granted, I think @Alzrius was only talking about a very specific issue of the specific point relating to real world science. And, he's not wrong. But, still, who cares? The point is, it never should have been in the game and it made pretty much zero sense for it to be there.

To @Clint_L 's very excellent point though - the need to relitigate this sort of stuff is just fodder. They got rid of gender stat limits almost forty years ago and it STILL makes the rounds in discussions like this?

 

[Hussar]

1. Pick a parent reeks of out ancestry/species/race/bloodlines must remain pure.
2. hell yes. see Tasha's. See all the posts where people chose a race to min max a class.

1. Really? So, my half-elf has elf traits is remaining pure, despite Dave's half elf having human traits? Considering stat bonuses are floating now, and many of these traits allow for choices - such as free feats or whatnot, two half-whatevers, despite having the same halfness, might have completely different stats.

IOW, instead of every half-whatever being mechanically identical, they are now all different. How is that a "pure" thing? If they were pure, then they would all be the same right?