D&D (2024) D&D species article

[DarkCrisis]

While modern designers do seem rather fond of the Feywild, D&D being biased towards elves is a very old thing. Even under the original boxed set rules, elves are clearly the best of the species options (the single disadvantage is their class/level restrictions).

Magic User in Platemail? Yes please.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Perhaps the elf-love is connected to WotC's baffling love affair with the Feywild.

Dude, aren't you like my age or older (46)?

Didn't you read dragon in the '90s? People have been complaining about D&D loving elves too much since at least the late '80s. Hell there was a fantasy RPG (whose name is escaping me) from the '80s, and one of the selling points was "no elves". Remember the Complete Book of Elves and the kerfuffle around it (reawakened a few years back when as part of a Kickstarter the author offered to apologise for it, then behaved rather churlishly about the whole affair when that goal was met!), because it was not only ridiculously laudatory towards elves, but full of broken-OP nonsense? Something not true of the other race-books.

We can go back even further of course to Tolkien reading his works to the Inklings back in the 1930s, and apparently one of them (I forget who) exclaiming "Not another bloody elf!".

If anything we're in one of the less elf-centric eras of D&D's history (though they remain favoured).

 

[Parmandur]

@Ruin Explorer do you deny that all possible standard array and point buy combos are not a mathematical subset of the possible results for rolling abilities...? The game is clearly balanced around the swinger option of the 3...hence all 3 work fine in practice.

 

[CreamCloud0]

compared to class, species was always an afterthought. With the separation into species and background (for the combined same impact) that means species becomes less important, that is just simple math. I have no problem with that, if anything they are still too disparate

i definitely agree the power distribution between class, species and background should be evened out more.

 

[Minigiant]

not sure big hands and feet help with climbing at all… if anything you have a harder time finding support in small cracks

Squirrels are much better climbers than humans, and it is not due to them having larger extremities

It's D&D humaniod climbing.

Ropes, ladders, fences, trees, and clear handholds.

Not smooth walls.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

@Ruin Explorer do you deny that all possible standard array and point buy combos are not a mathematical subset of the possible results for rolling abilities...? The game is clearly balanced around the swinger option of the 3...hence all 3 work fine in practice.

I can only say:

I do deny it's balanced "around" rolls though. It's balanced "around" standard array. It works with rolled stats but not very well. Whereas it pretty tight with standard array (point buy is in-between).

 

[Micah Sweet]

Dude, aren't you like my age or older (46)?

Didn't you read dragon in the '90s? People have been complaining about D&D loving elves too much since at least the late '80s. Hell there was a fantasy RPG (whose name is escaping me) from the '80s, and one of the selling points was "no elves". Remember the Complete Book of Elves and the kerfuffle around it (reawakened a few years back when as part of a Kickstarter the author offered to apologise for it, then behaved rather churlishly about the whole affair when that goal was met!), because it was not only ridiculously laudatory towards elves, but full of broken-OP nonsense? Something not true of the other race-books.

We can go back even further of course to Tolkien reading his works to the Inklings back in the 1930s, and apparently one of them (I forget who) exclaiming "Not another bloody elf!".

If anything we're in one of the less elf-centric eras of D&D's history (though they remain favoured).

Fair enough. I'm still right about the current Feywild obsession.

 

[mamba]

It's D&D humaniod climbing.

Ropes, ladders, fences, trees, and clear handholds.

Not smooth walls.

so no walls or steep rock surfaces (cliffs)? Didn’t realize humanoids never climb those, I’ll let the Rogues know

 

[Minigiant]

so no walls or steep rock surfaces (cliffs)? Didn’t realize humanoids never climb those, I’ll let the Rogues know

No what I am saying is the size range where PCs are allowed, bigger size would trump smaller size in climbing, jumping, and swimming.

PCs don't get to play the sizes where the smaller size of handholds would matter in rules.

Squirrels are tiny and have claws. Halflings don't.

Whereas the goliath or orcs big muscles and large hands that don't hinder the movement should also let them climb fast.

Goliath and orcs are 7-ft plus tall beings that are allowed to be as nimble as a cat and strong as a horse.

That's my main criticism with modern D&D species. It's adding all of these freaks of nature and then forgetting that these freaks of natur could do in place of blatant magic.

It's assumes humans in funny hats. Then forget that yeah technically this person is a like Jaguar or this person is 8 ft tall and muscular or this person has extreme eyesight or hearing.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

No what I am saying is the size range where PCs are allowed, bigger size would trump smaller size in climbing, jumping, and swimming.

Have you noticed that most extremely good human climbers are actually quite short? There are some people 6'+ but it's a lot rarer than being well into "below average" male height for male climbers (I haven't checked female climbers).

So this is not a good or safe assumption, that being taller, much heavier, but longer-limbed and with much larger hands and feet (and thus much harder to fit into hand-holds etc.) would make you a good climber.

Halfings are incredibly strong for their size, and could fit their hands and feet into much smaller gaps than humans - they couldn't take the same climbing routes as humans, but I daresay they'd be significantly better climbers overall. And Goliaths probably worse than humans at sheer face climbing.