Mainstream News Discovers D&D's Species Terminology Change

Several mainstream news sites have discovered that Dungeons & Dragons now refers to a character's species instead of race. The New York Times ended 2024 with a profile on Dungeons & Dragons, with a specific focus on the 2024 Player's Handbook's changes on character creation, the in-game terminology change from race to species, and the removal of Ability Score Increases tied to a character's species. The article included quotes by Robert J. Kuntz and John Stavropoulos and also referenced Elon Musk's outrage over Jason Tondro's forward in The Making of Original Dungeons & Dragons.

The piece sparked additional commentary on a variety of sites, including Fox News and The Telegraph, most of which focused on how the changes were "woke." Around the same time, Wargamer.com published a more nuanced piece about the presentation of orcs in the 2024 Player's Handbook, although its headline noted that the changes were "doomed" because players would inevitably replace the orc's traditional role as aggressor against civilization with some other monstrous group whose motivations and sentience would need to be ignored in order for adventurers to properly bash their heads in.

[Update--the Guardian has joined in also, now.]

Generally speaking, the mainstream news pieces failed to address the non-"culture war" reasons for many of these changes - namely that Dungeons & Dragons has gradually evolved from a game that promoted a specific traditional fantasy story to a more generalized system meant to capture any kind of fantasy story. Although some campaign settings and stories certainly have and still do lean into traditional fantasy roles, the kinds that work well with Ability Score Increases tied to a character's species/race, many other D&D campaigns lean away from these aspects or ignore them entirely. From a pragmatic standpoint, uncoupling Ability Score Increases from species not only removes the problematic bioessentialism from the game, it also makes the game more marketable to a wider variety of players.

Of course, the timing of many of these pieces is a bit odd, given that the 2024 Player's Handbook came out months ago and Wizards of the Coast announced plans to make these changes back in 2022. It's likely that mainstream news is slow to pick up on these types of stories. However, it's a bit surprising that some intrepid reporter didn't discover these changes for four months given the increased pervasiveness of Dungeons & Dragons in mainstream culture.

We'll add that EN World has covered the D&D species/race terminology changes as they developed and looks forward to covering new developments and news about Dungeons & Dragons in 2025 and beyond.

 

[Oofta]

I think you mean melanin. And saying race is about skin color is a bit overly simplistic. You can be racist against someone that has the same skin color as you (anti-Irish racism in America is a good example).

But, yes, race is a social construct. Typically created to justify discrimination against a created group.

D'oh. Autocomplete strikes again. My point was that grouping people by external appearance has little to do with biology.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

D'oh. Autocomplete strikes again. My point was that grouping people by external appearance has little to do with biology.

Yes. Genetically Finns and Japanese are more closely related than people from two different corners of Africa*, whilst the latter usually are lumped together whilst the former aren't.

(* Africa is super genetically diverse.)

 

[Remathilis]

I think you mean melanin. And saying race is about skin color is a bit overly simplistic. You can be racist against someone that has the same skin color as you (anti-Irish racism in America is a good example).

But, yes, race is a social construct. Typically created to justify discrimination against a created group.

It's an amusing historical footnote to remember prior to WW1, A Germans were not considered "white" (or more appropriately, white enough). Race isn't only a social construct, it's not even a fixed set of definitions.

 

[occam]

Fun fact: a not-insignificant portion of 5e was lifted from Pathfinder already. Acrobatics and Athletics were from Pathfinder's "Consolidated Skills" optional rule (and indeed, the concept of consolidating 3.5e's skills was itself taken from that optional rule). Having a 20th level "capstone" feature was something Paizo invented that also was "borrowed" for 5e. There's more, but it's been years now and I forget.

The level of misinformation on this particular thread, from repeated misunderstandings of how "species" is defined, to misstatements about what's in 2024 D&D, is getting to be a lot.

The Acrobatics and Athletics skills were introduced into the D&D tradition by 4th Edition D&D, playtested and published prior to Pathfinder 1e. And 4e epic destinies all had capstone features at 30th level.

 

[occam]

There is no mention in the 2024 PHB that things can be lifted from earlier printings on the book wherever they differ. Backward compability has been mentionned by the company as a commercial argument, but it didn't make the printed product.

<sigh>

Similarly, species in older books include ability score increases. If you’re using a species from an older book, ignore those increases and use only the ones given by your background.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I did double check in the sections I felt relevant, and didn't find it, contrary to the "What's new" boxed text that says that "things in this book replace versions from older books. Here are highlights: [...] Enhanced Classes [...] Reimagined Origins [...]" leading me to conclude that they were replaced, as we're explicitely told that these sections replace the older ones. The mention of using species from other books is actually put in the adusting ability score section, but it's there -- though for some reason, they mention using species from older books, and the PHB 2014 had no species, only races, but it's obvious they are referring to races since I am not aware of mention of species in published material before 2024.

Is there a similar mention about classes that I might have missed, to allow for the necromancer part of the warforged necromancer we were discussing? It would be strange not to have a wizard with a mix and match of subclass, some producing effects at level 2, other at level 3, but maybe I just overlooked a sidebar as well.

 

[Remathilis]

Is there a similar mention about classes that I might have missed, to allow for the necromancer part of the warforged necromancer we were discussing? It would be strange not to have a wizard with a mix and match of subclass, some producing effects at level 2, other at level 3, but maybe I just overlooked a sidebar as well.

Level 3: Wizard Subclass
"You gain a Wizard subclass of your choice. A subclass is a specialization that grants you features at certain Wizard levels. For the rest of your career, you gain each of your subclass's features that are of your Wizard level or lower."

Level 7: Blessed Strikes
Divine power infuses you in battle. You gain one of the following options of your choice (if you get either option from a Cleric subclass in an older book, use only the option you choose for this feature)."

So at level 3, you can take a subclass from another book and you get any features you would have gotten at level 1 or 2 at level 3 when you get the subclass. In addition, cleric has a unique note about doubling up divine strike/potent cantrip (which used to be subclass based, but is now part of the main cleric).

Both of these note state (implicitly or explicitly) that it is ok to mix 2014 and 2024 options. Combined with the species and origins sidebar, they have made assumptions that 2014 and 2024 will be able to work together if the DM so chooses.

So yes, a DM can absolutely allow warforged and artificers from RftLW, or half-elves and necromancers from the 2014 PHB if they want. There is nothing in the 2024 PHB that forbids them.

 

[mamba]

I agree that the name change to species was done lazily

was it lazy? Somehow I thought they did a poll…

 

[Remathilis]

was it lazy? Somehow I thought they did a poll…

WotC didn't poll us. It was changed between UAs, and they had hinted at the change, but we didn't know what it was until the UA with it

That said, I assume it went through sensitivity readers who probably thought it was acceptable.

 

[Dire Bare]

I love how folks confuse "lazy design" with "design choices I don't like".

Sigh.

There is nothing lazy about changing the term "race" to "species" in 2024 D&D . . . it's a choice. One that some don't like. Shrug.

Yes, there are other terms WotC could have used . . . I fail to see how using "ancestry", "heritage", or "lineage" is any more or less "lazy" than going with "species". None of the words work perfectly.

WotC could have gone farther with the mechanical changes to race/species . . . sure. But that again, isn't lazy design, it's a choice. Change things too much, and fans bitch. Don't change things enough, fans bitch. If you follow WotC's playtests over the years, they often go with smaller changes . . . not out of laziness, but from a conservative design perspective of trying to push the game forward without alienating existing fans. It's a deliberate choice.