D&D (2024) Half Race Appreciation Society: Half Elf most popular race choice in BG3

[Micah Sweet]

We've all known Yaarel for years around here and I think we can all be assured his motives are not selfish or thoughtless.

I'm not saying they are. But you can still be doing something that benefits you personally while changing things for others in a way they may or may not prefer non-selfishly if you think what you want is better for others; ie, "the greater good". In short, the motivation doesn't change what the action is.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The 2024 core rules must have ZERO racism.

Nothing you're suggesting will stop people who want to call D&D racist from calling it racist. I'm not sure anything can do that.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Let Backgrounds do the heavy lifting when it comes to cultural distinctions.

Backgrounds grant: a language, two proficiencies, a tool proficiency, and even a feat. There is a substantial amount of design space here.

For example, for an Uda culture Sleep Poisoner.

so you want to replace background with culture? or give everyone two backgrounds? because what background currently represents and what you're describing are not the same thing and should not be the same mechanical option IMO.

 

[Mistwell]

No doubt, members of the Sea culture tend to have higher Constitution on average. This is a cultural choice from utility. Flavorwise, they grow up exercising strenuously. Athletics and endurance are a typical part of their Background.

Maybe something you're not aware of: by you calling all differences "cultural" it's you starting to sound weird in terms of race issues.

For example, people who live in places with extremely high exposure to the sun typically have darker tans because of the sun, not their culture. Their culture is not a source of the darker tan, the environment is the source. In places with high exposure to the sun but multiple very different cultures, all the different peoples from different cultures still tend to have darker tans. It's a bit weird and uncomfortable to hear you describe it as some sort of cultural learned behavior, like if they just grew up with a different culture in the same local they wouldn't tend to have darker tans or something, as if the sun were not the source but rather how they were raised is the source.

Being able to breath under water and withstand the depths of the ocean is not cultural. They either are able to do those things or they die in that environment immediately. It's not because Nana baked traditional sea-elf cookies and celebrated sea-elf holidays and they went to sea-elf school and had sea-elf cookouts and walked the sea-elf streets with older sea-elves and all the other possible events which convey culture that they're able to breath under water and withstand the depths of the ocean. Some things are cultural, and some things are not, and some things are both. Breathing under water and withstanding the depths of the ocean are pretty firmly in the "not" category and imagining this world as being one where other humanoids would say, "If only I were raised differently I too would be able to breath under water and withstand the depths of the ocean" is weird.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Better idea than 'pick two cantrips'

A list of different features to pick from like hunter ranger or warlock invocations for the elf species. That way you don't get an entire elven civilisation drowning because Timmy accidently dropped an anti magic cube.

It gives room to add features like water breathing or flight in a more natural manner. (though flying elves would be op af, despite being a thing in lore. There is a reason they're not in 5e).

Flying elves were in a UA, and I used that (and older edition material) to add them to my game. There are already aarakocra and variant tieflings with wings anyway, and WotC's blind insistence on backwards compatibility means they're here to stay.

If you don't like something, remove it in your game. Don't deny it to others by trying to force it out of the rules. That goes for all of this.

 

[Yaarel]

Maybe something you're not aware of: by you calling all differences "cultural" it's you starting to sound weird in terms of race issues.

For example, people who live in places with extremely high exposure to the sun typically have darker tans because of the sun, not their culture. Their culture is not a source of the darker tan, the environment is the source. It's a bit weird and uncomfortable to hear you describe it as some sort of cultural learned behavior, like if they just grew up with a different culture in the same local they wouldn't have such a dark tan or something.

Being able to breath under water and withstand the depths of the ocean is not cultural.

Yes.

But D&D tends to avert that problem by the word "typically". Something like.

"Drow ethnicity typically exhibits a lustrous grayish complexion that can range from glossy obsidian to silverish pallor, while bluish, purplish, and other complexions are also known."

Make sure every culture includes athletic culture, intellectual culture, arts − and criminality − and I dont expect a problem.

There can be a suggestion of ethnicity without homogenizing it, because every culture will include immigrants who are now among the ancestors in the culture.

 

[Remathilis]

And the entire purpose of this new subsystem is so we don't use the term "sub-species"?

Part of the problem is that WotC has been inconsistent with its own language and design. (Surprise!)

Prior to Tasha, the language was race and subrace. In Tasha, they used the term lineage (as in custom lineage) but kept race/subrace. Then Van Richten's introduced three "races" that had the extra benefit of being able to be gained later (dhampir, hexblood, reborn) and called those lineages too. Then MotM came as and removed subraces from aasimar, genasi, shifter, etc making some of the choices inherent to the race (aasimar celestial legacy) or making them completely different races (air genasi, fire genasi, etc). All the new subraces that were part of PHB races (deep gnome, eladrin, duergar) became full standalone races with a "counts as an X" on it's type.

Now 2024 is coming and screwing up that design by saying those former subraces (which up to this point were being treated like standalone races, or sometimes a racial feature) are called lineage, unrelated to the use of the world prior. Further, they have made it so a sea elf is a separate species that counts as an elf, but a drow is an elf lineage that is part of the main elf species. And a drow elf who becomes a dhampir is an elf with the drow lineage and the dhampir lineage over writing almost all of their species traits.

Ugh. Nasty language use. Sloppy design. Drow, high and wood elves should be standalone species like astral, eladrin, sea, and shadar-Kai. Lineage should be used to species who you can inherit after play (or is designed to overlay on other creatures) and legacy for choices in a species like the type of shifter traits or aasimar wing type. There is no consistency in the terminology, which is what helps fuel these arguments.

 

[Micah Sweet]

These ideas are getting closer and closer to a B/X version of Elf as a Class.

I'd be cool with that too, as long as there are multiple options per heritage. Lets you play around with variant XP progression too. Of course, that's not 5e, but there are plenty of D&Ds in the sea.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, from comments I've seen from some people, DnD will keep being racist until all species stuff is purely cosmetic.

That's what I'm saying. Nothing is going to stop people making that claim.

 

[Scribe]

Define Culture as it pertains to this discussion of distinct entities with diverse biological traits such as flight, water breathing, super vision and heightened speed.