D&D General elf definition semantic shenanigans

[Mind of tempest]

in a different thread, it came up that defining the fantasy peoples of DND seems to be hard thus making certain what an elf is difficult let alone the less common options.
so I decided that we should discuss what each of the next blocks of phb handbook options as soon as someone tells me them as the internet is nothing but shovel articles and I need proper data.

no humans as we know what we all are.

elf
dwartves
halfling
gnomes
dragonborn
teifling
???

if you're asking about the title I am trying to be funny I know I am not funny hence the try.

 

[LordEntrails]

I don't see it as hard. Each race is defined in the source that it is defined in. i.e. read the PHB entry if you want to know what an Elf is. Of course, every DM can alter that for their game, but that only applies to that game.

 

[Umbran]

no humans as we know what we all are.

With respect, I wouldn't be too sure that we really do.

 

[aco175]

I'm not 100% what the question is in the OP.

I think the original ideas of races were enough defined, but now with the 5.5/Tasha's rules, I'm not sure. Elves used to be the smarter and more magic-like then humans and halflings used to be more shorter, weaker, but more dexterous than humans. Now they all seem just a bag of features that anyone can take. It seems to take away any advantages but with some disadvantages each of the races would have over the base human. The game could be just mutant humans with different powers at this point.

 

[Corinnguard]

The game could be just mutant humans with different powers at this point.

Or they could be like the metahumans in Shadowrun. Phenotypically they all appear different to one another, but genetically they are all the same.

 

[bedir than]

Elves used to be the smarter and more magic-like then humans

Still true.
All elves get keen senses, trance, fey ancestry -- they are clearly magical. Almost all subspecies get spells too, frequently being called out due to training not innate abilities. Some still get dex-y weapons.

halflings used to be more shorter, weaker, but more dexterous than humans

Still true.
All halflinglings get nimbleness, lucky and brave. All are small (meaning that they can't use heavy weapons due to weakness). Two of the non-Eberron subspecies have dex-y features. One doesn't.

 

[DammitVictor]

With respect, I wouldn't be too sure that we really do.

Human racial traits:

1. featherless biped
2. always count as Good when assensing their own Alignment
3. Dunning-Kruger Effect

BEHOLD A MAN

In the Shroompunk game I am developing, humans have mandatory subraces. These aren't ethnic or even strictly biological... the human subraces are aasimar, tiefling/fetchling, suli/ganzi, or one of the five types of genasi. They might have any of the "nonhuman" cosmetic features associated with their subtype, or be a normal-looking human with hints toward their essence. There are stereotypes concerning them... but they're only true enough that everyone believes them despite evidence to the contrary.

I'm not going to try to define the others... I have a reputation for pushing standard D&D races well past the point that other people consider acceptable.

 

[MarkB]

Are you looking for game-mechanical definitions or sociological/biological definitions, or some combination? Where is it that the definitions provided in the relevant sourcebooks fall down?

 

[Mind of tempest]

I'm not 100% what the question is in the OP.

I think the original ideas of races were enough defined, but now with the 5.5/Tasha's rules, I'm not sure. Elves used to be the smarter and more magic-like then humans and halflings used to be more shorter, weaker, but more dexterous than humans. Now they all seem just a bag of features that anyone can take. It seems to take away any advantages but with some disadvantages each of the races would have over the base human. The game could be just mutant humans with different powers at this point.

the point is to resolve that issue to make it clear what it is meant by all the options.

Human racial traits:

1. featherless biped
2. always count as Good when assensing their own Alignment
3. Dunning-Kruger Effect

BEHOLD A MAN

In the Shroompunk game I am developing, humans have mandatory subraces. These aren't ethnic or even strictly biological... the human subraces are aasimar, tiefling/fetchling, suli/ganzi, or one of the five types of genasi. They might have any of the "nonhuman" cosmetic features associated with their subtype, or be a normal-looking human with hints toward their essence. There are stereotypes concerning them... but they're only true enough that everyone believes them despite evidence to the contrary.

I'm not going to try to define the others... I have a reputation for pushing standard D&D races well past the point that other people consider acceptable.

today I learned I am at leat one-third not human, the question bing which third I lack.

Are you looking for game-mechanical definitions or sociological/biological definitions, or some combination? Where is it that the definitions provided in the relevant sourcebooks fall down?

a combination of all the above.

given we argue what the definition and core traits of anything is finding a definition would make these at least slightly easer

 

[Thomas Shey]

Or they could be like the metahumans in Shadowrun. Phenotypically they all appear different to one another, but genetically they are all the same.

Huh. I'd always assumed they were subspecies.