D&D (2024) D&D species article

[CreamCloud0]

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

Because as it is, your species choice is basically an afterthought to building your character, and yet for years one of the most common phrases associated with DnD was ‘pick your race and class’, if it continues the way it’s going it’ll soon end up as ‘pick your class and background’ which IMO doesn’t have half the same fantasy kick to it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Changing everything into magic to escape racism to me is unnecessary.

They did not change everything into magic. Stop spreading this lie.

If works naturally grow to 7 ft 300 lb It's not racist to say they have an ability that lets them lift better.

It also doesn't make it true that being 7 ft and 300lbs makes you better at lifting.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Sounds great. Good thing I don't feel shackled to the corporate blandness of official D&D. It's so much nicer over here.

 

[mamba]

Let a Elf get mastery with any finesse or ranged weapon.
Let an Orc get mastery with any heavy or versatile weapon.

why should this be race based, it makes more sense to be based on the background

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

Because this isn't an edition change, so there's no real force requiring you even use whatever nerfs they might come up with.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Shouldn't that be the player's choice if their elf is stuck up and only interested in elf niche stuff? (Which apparently isn't history, arcana, performance, nature, medicine or religion-based. I guess they spend 100 years contemplating their navels?)

Part of the problem with species that live for decades before becoming an adventurer is that they should have all sorts of practical skills OR skills that far exceed human ability. An elf should have a wide selection of skills while a human should have one or two. A dwarf should have crafting skill as an apprentice that a human master can hope to copy. But game rules say they have the same amount of skills and proficiency because it wouldn't be fair. So dwarves and elves spent 60 to 100 years to learn what a human learns in 20. That's not a slow-lifestyle slow, that's major learning disability slow!

So I'm not buying it unless you're arguing the only way to play an elf is as an arrogant noble/philosopher that wastes 100 years of their life on things with no practical application anywhere.

Honestly, another way to look at it is that humans are just insanely good at picking up skills. The baseline human is supposed to get the skilled feat, which is 4 skill profs more than anyone else. Consider that as our baseline, and maybe it does take an elf 50 years to learn something that a human can learn in 10.

Makes leveling weird? Absolutely, but leveling is always weird.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Honestly, another way to look at it is that humans are just insanely good at picking up skills. The baseline human is supposed to get the skilled feat, which is 4 skill profs more than anyone else. Consider that as our baseline, and maybe it does take an elf 50 years to learn something that a human can learn in 10.

Makes leveling weird? Absolutely, but leveling is always weird.

Actually, that a decent take. Would work even better if they said that was why instead of it being a fan rationization.

 

[Chaosmancer]

An ostrich will always run faster than a human, regardless of how many skill points the human has put into Athletics.

Is that racist?

No, but the Ostrich isn't better at math than the Crocodile, and neither of them are better at diplomacy than the Hyrax. They also are not more charming, whatever that means.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Also, while this is 100% true, if you actually do the math on the difference? I think i found that in DnD terms the difference between a human man and a human female would be something like a +6 strength.

DnD's system is just not set up to showcase that level of granularity with anything resembling video game physics, let alone reality.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

Heh, different editions have made different choices among those three.

5e is favoring diversity and balance, and fitting in mechanical representation where possible.

I wonder what it would look like if we chose balance and mechanical representation? We maybe allow diversity through DM advice and some more radical optional races (like, "We didn't put flying people in the PHB because that changes the game dramatically, and here's why. If you're OK with that change, here's how an aarakocra or winged elf or whatever could work"). People would probably just play unbalanced species anyway, or at least definitely complain that they couldn't play a centaur or whatever, but since each player only plays one character every year or so, I wonder if we'd have much of a problem with it, at least in the PHB.

I think the idea that 5e has too many species is a point with some support, and I also think that the idea that species is part of how you customize the feel of your personal campaign is worth discussing. A game where you play humans, dwarves, elves, and halflings has a very different vibe from a game where you play tieflings, aasimar, bariaur, and githzerai, and that's very different from a game where you play gnomes, elves, pixies, and half-ogres.

My default in 5e is to allow any official species (because I can trust the balance), but I wonder if we'd gain something from empowering DMs to curate that list of species more closely? It says something about your world and your game's intent if there's a minotaur in it or if there's an orc in it or if there's goblins and kobolds in it, or if there's half-dragons and dragonborn in it.

Definitely not the track they're following for 2024, but as much as I adore weird and exotic species, I wonder if we'd gain something by being willing to focus instead on making each species a significant and impactful choice both for the player and for the DM.