D&D (2024) D&D species article

[Charlaquin]

My YouTube algorithm can't seem to tell the difference between friend and foe.

It has probably pinned you as someone who will engage with content you agree with and content you disagree with. So you’re going to be funneled towards strong opinions in both directions.

 

[DEFCON 1]

My YouTube algorithm can't seem to tell the difference between friend and foe.

Heh heh... yep, that's the problem with "hate-watching" nowadays. The algorithms can't tell the difference between things we Watch Watch and Hate Watch and think we enjoy them all the same.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes. The strongest male human can lift more weight than the strongest female human, but D&D makes the genders equal, because to do otherwise is sexist. D&D is about the fantasy that anyone can be whatever they want to be. It’s not a real life simulator because reality is full of discrimination.

This is a binary philosophy when what we actually have is a spectrum. D&D is not a perfect real life simulator; it includes a fair amount of abstraction so it can remain playable. How much abstraction is "right" obviously varies on an individual basis, but the game, any version of it, is definitely a simulator to some degree.

 

[Aldarc]

It has probably pinned you as someone who will engage with content you agree with and content you disagree with. So you’re going to be funneled towards strong opinions in both directions.

Heh heh... yep, that's the problem with "hate-watching" nowadays. The algorithms can't tell the difference between things we Watch Watch and Hate Watch and think we enjoy them all the same.

I don't even do hate watching! YouTube just throws anything at me about a general subject matter I have a remote interest in. I even deselect videos and tell them not to recommend me certain channels or videos. Oh well. Neither here nor there.

What were we talking about again? Oh yeah, if ostriches are racist.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Oh yeah, if ostriches are racist.

I believe the proper term is 'racER'. Ostrich racing is an important part of our lives.

 

[I'm A Banana]

They should, IMO. That they don't is a gamist conceit.

One of the issues in any species discussion is that we quickly enter a world where if we're trying to be very biological about things (which is a problem in itself) there's just not balance between the species in the game, and that leads to issues in gameplay.

Our super-educated elves become the best skill monkeys in the game by virtue of the idea that "elves live for a long time."

And then maybe you have avariel who are equal to elves as skill monkeys and also have wings to fly. Or drow who are equal skill monkeys and also have innate magical powers.

And now the best rogue in the game is a drow, and if you want to choose a halfling rogue you're deliberately choosing a weaker choice because you won't have the breadth of skills.

If we want our species to be very biological and grounded, and we also want game balance, we enter a world where we just can't have exotic or exceptional people (like "elves") as character options. If elves are Just Better Than Humans, they're not a balanced choice in the game. Wings, multiple limbs, even things like energy resistance or spellcasting are probably right out. Very narrow list of fantasy archetypes for that.

But that's also not what a lot of players want. A lot of players would like to play giants and fairies and elves and ooze people and creatures with innate magic, and to have those choices be balanced alongside the choice of human or dwarf or halfling. And so you get a more "gameist" conception of species, as this collection of balanced mechanics rather than as traits arising from what the creatures are in the narrative. Because the narrative doesn't have this burden of balance.

This is a hard line to walk for Official D&D. It's like you have to pick two from the list: a diverse roster of species, a balanced selection between the species, and a mechanical representation of the narrative.

 

[Micah Sweet]

One of the issues in any species discussion is that we quickly enter a world where if we're trying to be very biological about things (which is a problem in itself) there's just not balance between the species in the game, and that leads to issues in gameplay.

Our super-educated elves become the best skill monkeys in the game by virtue of the idea that "elves live for a long time."

And then maybe you have avariel who are equal to elves as skill monkeys and also have wings to fly. Or drow who are equal skill monkeys and also have innate magical powers.

And now the best rogue in the game is a drow, and if you want to choose a halfling rogue you're deliberately choosing a weaker choice because you won't have the breadth of skills.

If we want our species to be very biological and grounded, and we also want game balance, we enter a world where we just can't have exotic or exceptional people (like "elves") as character options. If elves are Just Better Than Humans, they're not a balanced choice in the game. Wings, multiple limbs, even things like energy resistance or spellcasting are probably right out. Very narrow list of fantasy archetypes for that.

But that's also not what a lot of players want. A lot of players would like to play giants and fairies and elves and ooze people and creatures with innate magic, and to have those choices be balanced alongside the choice of human or dwarf or halfling. And so you get a more "gameist" conception of species, as this collection of balanced mechanics rather than as traits arising from what the creatures are in the narrative. Because the narrative doesn't have this burden of balance.

This is a hard line to walk for Official D&D. It's like you have to pick two from the list: a diverse roster of species, a balanced selection between the species, and a mechanical representation of the narrative.

My choices from your list are diverse roster and mechanical representation. Balance gets squeezed in as best it can once those other two are handled.

Of course, what I think you're really saying is that WotC is not trying to juggle those three, but rather is focused on diversity and balance, and dropping mechanical representation.

 

[jmartkdr2]

My choices from your list are diverse roster and mechanical representation. Balance gets squeezed in as best it can once those other two are handled.

Of course, what I think you're really saying is that WotC is not trying to juggle those three, but rather is focused on diversity and balance, and dropping mechanical representation.

Bit if a tangent: you can have your cake and eat it too if you’re willing to introduce different costs by race, through a system like level adjustment (but better balanced).

However that’s not something that would fit in the crunch level of official 5e DnD.

 

[mamba]

My problem isn't that the races are better than the 2014 versions. Its that they aren't better than various upgrades they got along the way.

and maybe some races got buffed too much along the way, why should every adjustment always be a buff… I think they are using nerfs too sparingly as is

 

[Chaosmancer]

No. It's bad that they keep talking about archetypes then removed 2 classic ones.

I assume one of those is Orc as Lifter, and that wasn't removed so much as given a different spin. Yes, Orcs no longer count as large for the purposes of carrying weight. Instead, they are an implacable, nearly unkillably tough foe. Which is ALSO a classic orc archetype, and helps differentiate them.

I have no idea what other archetype you think was removed.

They didn't give species more skills and didn't explore them the skill system in species.

So we have gone from "they made everything more magical" to "they didn't give anyone any skills" to "they didn't give more people skills or explore the skill system in species"

Sure, they didn't give more species more skills... was that a promise they made? Was that a design goal they needed to meet? With the recent discussion that old options are still legal to use, plenty of races/species get skills and interact with the skill system. They were under no requirement to do MORE.

I personally don't like the THP thing.
The Orc Aggressive felt better. Orcs being able to rush the target every turn felt special. Adrenaline Rush could have been tied to it and limited.

You not liking it doesn't mean it isn't the reason behind the change, or that it was a bad idea. Sure, a continuous bonus action dash could have been put in, But despite being limited in use, this is more flexible in use than being able to bonus action dash towards an enemy and only towards an enemy.

It feels like a lost that Goliaths are 7ft or 8ft tal humaniod with giant hands and feet. All without not being naturally clumsy like tall folk.

Goliaths, if you look at them, should be naturally good at climbing and swimming.

Being big with big hands doesn't naturally make you good at climbing or swimming. And again "I feel like they should have this" doesn't change the fact that the change indicates that that was never the intention behind the ability.

Because they removed it.

The shift of ASI to backgrounds and removal of skills and half elves left the PHB without a charmer, diplomat, or wanderer species option.

False? Again, humans are literally RIGHT THERE. A human can have 4 skills from their species. Persuasion, insight, survival, and whatever 4th skill you think is needed to cover being a charmer and a diplomat and a wanderer.

Also, we have it directly from Crawford that the Half-elf is still a 100% legal option, so the PHB has the human to cover the concept, and if you don't like the human for it, you can just use the Half-Elf.