When a Gnome and a Dragonborn have kids, one sibling can be the stats of one parent, and an other sibling can be the stats of the other parent. The choice is equal opportunity − and at least in this sense fully inclusive.
Telling a real life person where one parent is Korean and the other parent is African than the proper approach is to pretend to others that you're either Korean or African but not both, and if you have a sibling one of you could choose to say you're Korean and the other choose to say their African and that's "equality," is offensive. That's the heart of the issue. Nobody actually cares about what it looks like to fictional gnomes and dragonborns, the entire concept of inclusivity has meaning because of real human beings playing the game with backgrounds which might identify with game elements. And this choice might look good in "mechanics" but it's about the most offensive approach to take when considering the humans playing the game.
The amount of page count to present a system that can mix-and-match the mechanics of every player species, plus give advice for nonplayer species, might require more page count than is possible in the core Players Handbook.
That's fine. A single sentence saying refer to the DMs guide on how to go about creating any half-race you like would do.
Moreover, there will surely be options that are much better than other options, thus require future updates to rebalance various options. I have to admit the core rules remain more stable without species trait miscibility.
I think there is a way to present the mix system economically in the core rules, by species descriptions themselves dividing the traits into separable feats. But all of this requires serious scrutiny for balance before entering core rules.
For someone who constantly claims the rules must be inclusive, you're awful focused suddenly on balance and mechanics and page count when an actual inclusivity issue is brought up that you don't seem to like.
I suspect a system for mixing species traits will eventually happen.
They've had 10 years to work it out, and this is the new edition. This is where you put that system. Particularly if inclusivity is the reason you're changing the existing system, you make the "fix" inclusive!
In the mean time, the multispecies characters are central to the official setting lore. The narrative of multispecies is alive and well and everywhere. 2024 will make the lore for other multispecies characters even more prominent within the setting lore.
Because there is almost zero loss − mechanically − by deleting 2014 "Half Elf" mechanics, I see nothing lost.
Because that's the mechanical answer, not the inclusive answer. I mean mechanically one could say, "I see nothing wrong with female characters having a -2 strength relative to male characters" and you'd be right. MECHANCICALLY that kind of system can function. Inclusivity however is a different story with such a system, and that was the topic we were discussing - inclusivity and not whether something functions mechanics-wise.
The 2014 "Half" Elf, has Charisma +2, and +1 any two, an extra language and extra two skill. 2024 players can continue to create these characters now, utilizing either Human or Elf as the basis. Players can choose +2 Charisma and +1 any, or +1 to Charisma and any tw0. (The missing extra +1 any is the opposite of a salient species-defining trait.) There is virtually zero loss. The game continues with the socalled "Half" Elf characters with moreorless the same 2014 stats.
I cant cry for the "Half" Elf. Because it is alive and well and living in 2024.
No, the MECHANICS can be replicated but all of the description at the heart of the inclusivity issue is lost. The reason for half-elves wasn't mechanical in nature. Much like the reason for half-orcs wasn't mechanical. And the reason they've been removed wasn't mechanics either.
You keep trying to drag our conversation away from the inclusivity issue, and you're the one who raised that inclusivity issue that started this part of the conversation. Why?
