D&D (2024) D&D species article

[Micah Sweet]

You should pay more attention to the meetings then.

I really wish there was a Confused emoji.

 

[Charlaquin]

Your own experience as a half-elf or half-orc?

What about the game opening up mixed ancestry to all imaginable combinations, making them all valid, makes it less inclusive? It's radically more inclusive. By many orders of magnitude!

As opposed to the current version, which repeats IRL stigmas about "half-X" by making them into a completely distinct species as if the most important thing about them is their mixed parentage. And singles out just two to acknowledge.

The problem, according to some, is that being forced to pick a set of traits from one parent and leaving the influence from the other parent purely aesthetic, echoes a very common way in which mixed-race people are often marginalized, being treated like they can’t be both, they have to take after one or the other.

Personally (and for what it’s worth, I am a mixed race person myself, but look white as the driven snow), I can see this criticism, and I agree that the “pick one or the other for your stats” approach isn’t ideal for representing mixed heritage, I see it as less of an issue than treating some mixes as more valid than others by giving them complete species entries but not others.

The ideal solution would of course be some kind of build-your-own-mixed-species system, wherein you could pick a trait or two from each side. But since 5e’s species design isn’t uniform enough for that to work easily, I can see why WotC hasn’t decided to go with it, as far as we know.

My recommendation to anyone who wants to play a mixed-species character and doesn’t want to just pick the stats from one parent, would be to use the custom lineage tools from Tasha’s. It’s not a perfect solution either, but there really is no perfect solution within the limitations of 5e D&D’s rules structure. It does seem from my perspective to be the “least worst” option available.

 

[Charlaquin]

I really wish there was a Confused emoji.

That would be very useful

 

[Neonchameleon]

Your own experience as a half-elf or half-orc?

What about the game opening up mixed ancestry to all imaginable combinations, making them all valid, makes it less inclusive? It's radically more inclusive. By many orders of magnitude!

No it isn't. It says straight up "you have to take after your dad OR your mum if they are from different groups. You must choose one to be dominant, and can not end up as a mix of the two". You must choose one pigeon hole that is dominant.

Mapping to real world issues that D&D race can be a proxy for mixed race is a grouping on the British census for a reason - and got tossed in the trash. Second generation immigrants, bilingual, and able to move in both cultures but never quite fitting except with each other are a thing. These got removed.

But in this new world of D&D the species version of that has been erased. You can be a half dwarf half Asimar - but you must be part of one and not the other.

As opposed to the current version, which repeats IRL stigmas about "half-X" by making them into a completely distinct species as if the most important thing about them is their mixed parentage. And singles out just two to acknowledge.

So it tried to avoid IRL stigmas not by doing better but by literally erasing all representation from the fantasy. That was not an improvement.

 

[Demetrios1453]

I wager that within a relatively short amount of time, the amount of backgrounds is going to explode. Between old backgrounds being converted (unofficially and then officially), new backgrounds in future products, 3pp products and rules in the DMG for creating them, I suspect there will be no lack for appropriate backgrounds that mix just the right collection on ASI, skills and feats. Maybe you don't like the noble background, but perhaps the courier or Waterdhavian noble will be more to your liking.

I wouldn't be surprised if we get a selection of further official backgrounds (at least covering those stat combos that are missing with the current selection, although I would expect significantly more than that) in the inevitable Xantahtar's/Tasha's type book that will be coming in a year or two, along with further species and subclasses (I'm going to guess 4 more each), along with the artificer.

 

[Clint_L]

But in this new world of D&D the species version of that has been erased. You can be a half dwarf half Asimar - but you must be part of one and not the other.

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - in the new rules that states this. You can make your character as much of a blend of different groups as you want. You can build a whole culture of gnome/goliath/tabaxi folks, with all the distinctiveness that make IRL cultures so unique. When it comes to the tiny thing that is the mechanical difference that affects game play, then you pick which one to emphasize for a particular character.

Focusing on a few physical features as if those are what matter when it comes to a cultural heritage is weird and, IMO, echoes problematic IRL stereotypes.

And letting players cherry pick the best mechanical features would not emulate IRL in any way - it's a pure game contrivance.

The system being implemented is clean, balanced, and puts distinctiveness where it belongs: as primarily a product of culture and tradition, rather than anatomy.

 

[mellored]

I'm pretty much disappointed with all of them.

A chunk of the species power has shifted to the background.

Mountain Dwarfs can still start with medium armor, just as a background feat.

Perhaps less flavorful, but it's more customization.

 

[Argyle King]

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - in the new rules that states this. You can make your character as much of a blend of different groups as you want. You can build a whole culture of gnome/goliath/tabaxi folks, with all the distinctiveness that make IRL cultures so unique. When it comes to the tiny thing that is the mechanical difference that affects game play, then you pick which one to emphasize for a particular character.

Focusing on a few physical features as if those are what matter when it comes to a cultural heritage is weird and, IMO, echoes problematic IRL stereotypes.

And letting players cherry pick the best mechanical features would not emulate IRL in any way - it's a pure game contrivance.

The system being implemented is clean, balanced, and puts distinctiveness where it belongs: as primarily a product of culture and tradition, rather than anatomy.

Ok, so then why do those other choices continue to get mechanical support?

To an extent, I understand your point of view.

From an overall game-design philosophy, I'm not comprehending how this design choice fits into the stated goals for why other choices were also made.

There are/were other previews containing things that were less than satisfactory to me, but I can still understand why changes were made in the context of why they were said to be necessary.

I'm not understanding how the overall design vision for 5e24 makes sense when it comes to character creation.

I didn't participate in playtests, and I am admittedly out of the loop when it comes to recent D&D developments.

Does there exist a strong communal desire for more Goliath diversity and removal of mechanically distinct half-elves?

 

[Scribe]

Does there exist a strong communal desire for more Goliath diversity and removal of mechanically distinct half-elves?

Goliath diversity is about the only 'new' thing worth note, as the 'Giant-adjacent' it makes sense in the same way the various Tieflings, the Dragonborn, and other box checking makes sense. I dont begrudge it.

Removal of the Half-Elf and Half-Orc, has no strong community support that I've seen. Its like I've told my son on occasion.

"OK, you learned something from this experience, but your choices after are showing me you maybe came to the wrong conclusion, and have learned the wrong lesson."

 

[Argyle King]

Goliath diversity is about the only 'new' thing worth note, as the 'Giant-adjacent' it makes sense in the same way the various Tieflings, the Dragonborn, and other box checking makes sense. I dont begrudge it.

Removal of the Half-Elf and Half-Orc, has no strong community support that I've seen. Its like I've told my son on occasion.

"OK, you learned something from this experience, but your choices after are showing me you maybe came to the wrong conclusion, and have learned the wrong lesson."

I understand how the goliath thing makes sense -to an extent. (Personally, I would have approached it differently, but that's a different conversation.)

While I understand it, it's a little weird that tieflings are forever changed due to a bloodpact made generations ago, goliaths vary depending upon the identity of a distant giant ancestor, and etc; but being the direct product of two different species (who each have measurable differences in the game world) breeding is now an option that carries less mechanical significance than it did before.

I understand those who have a point of view that -in theory- now being able to mix and match everything opens up more possibilities. "I'm half dwarf and half dragonborn, and that's why I look like a dwarf and spit acid but don't have any Dwarven abilities."

Still, that's weird. It also ignores the significance (both in terms of previous game lore and out-of-game human experience) for why the specific mixes of half-elf and half-orc were unique choices.

Stepping back from that from a moment and looking at the bigger picture, I have a lot of questions about how that changes world building. When 4E made changes to tieflings and dragonborn, those changes echoed in changes to game lore and setting assumptions.

I wonder what changes will be born of new takes on various D&D species.

What is the 5e24 design team's overall vision for the game going forward?