D&D (2024) No Dwarf, Halfling, and Orc suborgins, lineages, and legacies

[DEFCON 1]

If culture/background can be a stand in for subspecies with the Stat mods included, why bother, just refluff things and have humans with funny hats, and cultures/backgrounds.

All species already are just humans with funny hats, because every single one of them is played by a human being at the table. And as not a single one of us knows what an alien species is actually like, all we can do is play particular human personality traits and assign them to these alien species as being "what these alien species are about". But they are still just human personality traits.

Are Dwarves "gruff and love ale"? Sure. That's what the books say. But that's exactly the same as a lot of human beings are. So when your character is gruff and loves ale are you really playing a "dwarf" or are you actually just playing a human being wearing a funny "dwarf hat"?

The only way the game tries to distinguish between the human and the funny hat is by giving a small handful of rather superfluous game mechanics to all of them that are supposed to "represent" the alien species. Which means that you can have as many different species in the game as you want, in as many groups or subgroups as you want... so long as the designers create different combinations of game mechanics to hand out and then assign to the "human with a funny hat".

 

[DammitVictor]

I’d consider racial spells and damage resistances to be genetic, not cultural. And, based on the information from those links, I don’t think the Level Up version of the dwarves subraces is any less bland than the 5e versions in lore or mechanics.

I have nerve heard of anyone being taught to be less vulnerable to poison or fire. And racial spells are genetic. If they weren’t they’d be attached to a separate mechanic like Background or a new Culture mechanic.

"They were both poisoned. I spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocane powder."

I think the point here is that the racial/subrace rules don't do anything to distinguish between aspects that are genetic, that which are the product of upbringing, or that which require both.

I understand the impulse to have rules to distinguish between these aspects, but I think it is both seriously overrated as a worldbuilding priority and mechanically they lead to overcomplicated and implausible characters that slow down gameplay and stretch everyone's suspension of disbelief. "But what if a little halfling baby was raised by a tribe of bugbears?" It's possible... and if there are enough halfling communities living shoulder-to-shoulder with enough bugbear communities, it's even inevitable. But does it happen often enough that we need to have rules for it, especially when the existence of those rules means they're going to apply to half of our player characters?

Feel like you can draw a straight line from race-as-class (Classic) -> race-and-class with restrictions (AD&D) ->
any-race-any-class w/ "favored class" (3.X) -> any-race-any-class with no restrictions (PF 1/2 and D&D 4/5).

Likewise, from fixed ability bonuses and penalties to flex bonuses/no penalties (4e, 5e subraces, PF2) to the free +2/+1 bonuses in Tasha's.

And all of these changes, as much as they expand player choices... also reduce the significance of those choices. "Race", or "ancestry" or "lineage" or whatever you want to call it, is less and less of a character's identity and it becomes harder and harder to differentiate between characters of different races... while subraces of the most popular races are constantly proliferating with minor differences that should (IMO) be represented as options available to all members of their respective, more diverse, races.

And for any ability we assume as genetic, it's trivial to create a narrative where it's a learned/taught/granted by cultural rite ability. (And vice-versa!)

I really wish more people would understand this. Really understand it, internalize it. We make these basically arbitrary design decisions, either based on older decisions made by older designers or just our own personal assumptions... and we get so dogmatic about them, as if the thing we just made up was the only possible answer we could have just made up.

I'm still of the opinion that halflings and gnomes should be offshoots of a common stock. It helps pull both of them back from flanderization, at the very least.

I am working on a Spelljammer and Classic TSR/Early WotC mashup; I've been combining a lot of races/species to build connective tissue between unrelated settings. Instead of trying to fold gnomes and halflings into a common ancestor-- I mean, Hell, they didn't even get two separate PHBR books-- I combined them with two different aliens. I combined gnomes with fraal and halflings with dromites (called "hin"); they're both small, cheerful, telepathic (via ghostwise/whispergnome) like their classical counterparts, but now they feel like very different ancestries.

(For the record? Weren/bugbear, warforged/android as mechalus, t'sa/kobold, and destrachan/wyvaran as sesheyan. The Star Frontiers aliens already got SJ conversions, so I mostly just pulled in some Pathfinder stuff and called it a day.)

Of course, this is one part of my overall effort to make a more coherent and consistent presentation for this area of mechanics. E.g. all races have four subtypes except humans, because I couldn't come up with four that made sense, I could only manage three (Earthfast, Starbound, and Dual-Bloodline).

In my Shroompunk setting, all "humans" are actually planetouched: aasimar, tiefling/fetchling, earth/fire/metal/water/wood genasi, or ganzi. They're all human, they recognize each other as human, and their planar subtype isn't really genetic so every human community and most human households are mixed.

For some folks. For others it’s part of the work of removing the undertones of racial essentialism from the game. For some folks it’s about adding more diversity and customization to the available player options. And I’m sure for a lot of folks it’s probably some combination of those factors.

If people don't want there to be essential differences between human and nonhuman (N)PCs, there should not be human and nonhuman (N)PCs. It is absolutely pointless, a waste of paper and ink and creative labor, to populate an entire fantasy world with "nonhuman people" that are just like humans in all of their thoughts, feelings, and capabilities.

There are plenty of fantasy settings that don't have D&D's proliferation of intelligent nonhuman peoples and plenty of other fantasy games that don't have rules for them... D&D does not have to have all of these different people just to check off some box.

 

[Remathilis]

Good. Get rid of all “sub-races” and make that all an aspect of background/culture.

I think MotM is a good way of handling it. Eladrin is their own species that "count" as an elf and thus kin but not exactly the same. But WotC in their infinite wisdom said "what if we kept subraces, called them something else, and make them even more irrelevant?"

 

[Mind of tempest]

I think I have realised the reason default stats feel weak every caps out the same.

assume we use Goliaths as the strength race and dwarves as the hardy race(e.g. con stat) the goliath can push beyond 20 str but not 20 con with the dwarf being the mirror of that and it always applies so even if you put it in at level one you can have the 22 str goliath.
it would have to be a plus to the stats and the cap.
ideally buffing the stat default budget increases to 5 but with only one fixed one and only the fixed on pushing you above the cap and no possible plus above 2

meater options but always useful, humans get all 5 point wherever but can never go above 20 in stats without a different kind of bonus or magic item.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think I have realised the reason default stats feel weak every caps out the same.

assume we use Goliaths as the strength race and dwarves as the hardy race(e.g. con stat) the goliath can push beyond 20 str but not 20 con with the dwarf being the mirror of that and it always applies so even if you put it in at level one you can have the 22 str goliath.
it would have to be a plus to the stats and the cap.
ideally buffing the stat default budget increases to 5 but with only one fixed one and only the fixed on pushing you above the cap and no possible plus above 2

meater options but always useful, humans get all 5 point wherever but can never go above 20 in stats without a different kind of bonus or magic item.

This is why I prefer the 13th Age model of stat boosts.

Every race has two stats it can choose to add +2 to. So does every class. You get one stat from your class and one from your race, as long as they're different.*

So, let's say Paladin values Strength and Charisma, while Wizard values Intelligence and Wisdom. And we'll say Dragonborn are known for their Strength and Charisma, Eladrin are known for their Intelligence and Dexterity.

An Eladrin Wizard can have +Int/+Dex (taking the Int bonus from being a Wizard), +Wis/+Int (from being an Elf), or if they really want to, +Dex/+Wis and not get any bonus to Int at all. A Dragonborn Wizard gets four options, Strength/Int, Strength/Wis, Cha/Int, Cha/Wis. Greater versatility, but at the cost of several not-as-optimal options. (13A does other things to make it so high scores aren't necessarily more desirable than broad scores.)

Conversely, a Dragonborn Paladin gets only one option: Str/Cha, because whatever they pick from class, their racial bonus has to be the other. An Elf Paladin gets four options: Str/Int, Str/Dex, Cha/Int, Cha/Dex. What with at least some editions making Paladins who really do value pure Cha and others that mostly go for Str, this actually makes for a huge variety, as any one of these four could make an effective Paladin character.

This method is simple, effective, and most importantly, it pokes a hole straight through the biggest argument against getting rid of racial ability score bonuses, that is, that doing this removes the flavor and distinctiveness of races. Because...this doesn't! Every single elf, no matter what, will be either quick or clever (inclusive). Every single dragonborn will be strong or winsome. Every single orc will be strong or quick. Etc. There's still a pattern. It's just not a one-size-fits-all pattern, and moreover, it's a pattern that recognizes that training is much more important than "talent" 99.9% of the time. (Indeed, "talent" is mostly a myth.)

The special human trait of being able to pick any stat for your racial +2 is thus actually quite nice--you can pick whatever stat would be best for what you want to do with things. Or you can pick randomly, if you want to represent that the character wasn't necessarily an ideal fit for their profession of choice.

*Some classes are special and get to choose either one or two stats out of three. Monks, for example, choose two out of Str/Dex/Wis, so long as it doesn't double up with their racial bonus. Usually this is a sign that the class in question is very MAD or contains a lot of divergent playstyles in one package.

 

[Mind of tempest]

This is why I prefer the 13th Age model of stat boosts.

Every race has two stats it can choose to add +2 to. So does every class. You get one stat from your class and one from your race, as long as they're different.*

So, let's say Paladin values Strength and Charisma, while Wizard values Intelligence and Wisdom. And we'll say Dragonborn are known for their Strength and Charisma, Eladrin are known for their Intelligence and Dexterity.

An Eladrin Wizard can have +Int/+Dex (taking the Int bonus from being a Wizard), +Wis/+Int (from being an Elf), or if they really want to, +Dex/+Wis and not get any bonus to Int at all. A Dragonborn Wizard gets four options, Strength/Int, Strength/Wis, Cha/Int, Cha/Wis. Greater versatility, but at the cost of several not-as-optimal options. (13A does other things to make it so high scores aren't necessarily more desirable than broad scores.)

Conversely, a Dragonborn Paladin gets only one option: Str/Cha, because whatever they pick from class, their racial bonus has to be the other. An Elf Paladin gets four options: Str/Int, Str/Dex, Cha/Int, Cha/Dex. What with at least some editions making Paladins who really do value pure Cha and others that mostly go for Str, this actually makes for a huge variety, as any one of these four could make an effective Paladin character.

This method is simple, effective, and most importantly, it pokes a hole straight through the biggest argument against getting rid of racial ability score bonuses, that is, that doing this removes the flavor and distinctiveness of races. Because...this doesn't! Every single elf, no matter what, will be either quick or clever (inclusive). Every single dragonborn will be strong or winsome. Every single orc will be strong or quick. Etc. There's still a pattern. It's just not a one-size-fits-all pattern, and moreover, it's a pattern that recognizes that training is much more important than "talent" 99.9% of the time. (Indeed, "talent" is mostly a myth.)

Some classes are special and get to choose either one or two stats out of three. Monks, for example, choose *two out of Str/Dex/Wis, so long as it doesn't double up with their racial bonus. Usually this is a sign that the class in question is very MAD or contains a lot of divergent playstyles in one package.

I would propose a hybrid of this and my proposed system so you always have the ability to make yourself strong in your class but if you want all in on something you feel ludicrous good at it.

who cares if the str guy from the str race using the str class is insanely strong that is the whole point.

also elves as wis/int is cursed they are clearly the dex race given the endless waxing of elven, agility, dexterity and elegance.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I would propose a hybrid of this and my proposed system so you always have the ability to make yourself strong in your class but if you want all in on something you feel ludicrous good at it.

who cares if the str goy from the str race using the str class is insanely strong that is the whole point.

Eh. I see it as ensuring that people don't just always gun for exactly the same options every time. It ensures a greater variety of player character choices, because players will not feel pressured to minmax. Letting players stack stuff into the stratosphere is precisely why 3e was such a busted, broken, stupid mess. (Well, that and that they never playtested most of it.)

also elves as wis/int is cursed they are clearly the dex race given the endless waxing of elven, agility, dexterity and elegance.

Er...I explicitly said their choices were Intelligence and Dexterity. It's Wizards who value Intelligence and Wisdom. The "Wis/Int (from being an elf)" meant that the player is choosing the "high" elf(/eladrin) Intelligence bonus...as opposed to choosing the Wizard Intelligence bonus as the previous option explicitly had...

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Er...I explicitly said their choices were Intelligence and Dexterity. It's Wizards who value Intelligence and Wisdom. The "Wis/Int (from being an elf)" meant that the player is choosing the "high" elf(/eladrin) Intelligence bonus...as opposed to choosing the Wizard Intelligence bonus as the previous option explicitly had...

Seems pretty meaningless. People will put the best score in their class' main ability regardless. So every wizard will have the same int, every barbarian the same strength etc. It doesn't really matter if orcs could bonus to strength from their species and halflings don't if halflings can get that bonus from class anyway.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Eh. I see it as ensuring that people don't just always gun for exactly the same options every time. It ensures a greater variety of player character choices, because players will not feel pressured to minmax. Letting players stack stuff into the stratosphere is precisely why 3e was such a busted, broken, stupid mess. (Well, that and that they never playtested most of it.)


Er...I explicitly said their choices were Intelligence and Dexterity. It's Wizards who value Intelligence and Wisdom. The "Wis/Int (from being an elf)" meant that the player is choosing the "high" elf(/eladrin) Intelligence bonus...as opposed to choosing the Wizard Intelligence bonus as the previous option explicitly had...

some people will do the same thing no matter what you do, everyone has their favourit flavour regardless of its quality.

you reduce pressure to minmax by adjusting the base math of the game to require the minimum, a featureless grey only even ten in all stat blob is the test for all classes and nothing else, sure some combs will be insane but the solution is to make harder challenges not cut away the joy of being really good.

ah, my mistake I must have read it wrong.

Seems pretty meaningless. People will put the best score in their class' main ability regardless. So every wizard will have the same int, every barbarian the same strength etc. It doesn't really matter if orcs could bonus to strength from their species and halflings don't if halflings can get that bonus from class anyway.

the meaningful choice is not str if you're making a barbarian it is everything else you pick around it.
a default competence in your selected class is a sanity feature, not a meaningful feature not all parts of a character are equally meaningful some are to make it work well.

 

[Corinnguard]

I understand the impulse to have rules to distinguish between these aspects, but I think it is both seriously overrated as a worldbuilding priority and mechanically they lead to overcomplicated and implausible characters that slow down gameplay and stretch everyone's suspension of disbelief. "But what if a little halfling baby was raised by a tribe of bugbears?" It's possible... and if there are enough halfling communities living shoulder-to-shoulder with enough bugbear communities, it's even inevitable. But does it happen often enough that we need to have rules for it, especially when the existence of those rules means they're going to apply to half of our player characters?

I don't think it's the addition of new rules to distinguish which traits are genetic and which traits are the result of upbringing. It's more like the pre-existing traits of a given race were categorized into traits you were born with and traits you learned as you were growing up in a particular society. In terms of game mechanics, I fail to see how they lead to overcomplicated and implausible characters that slow down gameplay or stretch everyone's suspension of disbelief. What I do see these two categories doing is adding a touch of real life to a fantasy setting. RL isn't a monoculture. It's a collection of cultures brushing up against each other, interacting with one another in myriad ways, and even borrowing from one another. Each of the races in a fantasy setting shouldn't be monocultural either. They can't be. As for stretching everyone's sense of disbelief, well we're already doing that every time we role-play in a RPG. Sometimes you got to see how far you can stretch it.

Lastly, this splitting up idea is relatively new. We don't even know if it leads to overcomplicated, implausible characters yet.