D&D (2024) No Dwarf, Halfling, and Orc suborgins, lineages, and legacies

[Micah Sweet]

I’d consider racial spells and damage resistances to be genetic, not cultural. And, based on the information from those links, I don’t think the Level Up version of the dwarves subraces is any less bland than the 5e versions in lore or mechanics.

You're welcome to feel that way, but defining them as cultures is a brilliant way to handle those kinds of differences IMO. If you are dealing with something more physical, the heritage portion of the origin system offers a choice of heritage gifts.

 

[TwoSix]

sure, maybe some things do need training to properly use but at the same time that doesn't mean that the underlying traits that allow them to use those abilities aren't also biologically innate, perhaps duregar have a particularly strong strain of transmutaion/illusion magic in their blood which is what lets them cast enlarge/reduce and invisibility, there's nothing that implies the base dwarf needs to train their ability to resist poisons, so why might a sub-species of volcanic area dwarf need to 'train' their fire resistance.

I think the point here is that the racial/subrace rules don't do anything to distinguish between aspects that are genetic, that which are the product of upbringing, or that which require both.

Characters start as young adults, and we rarely (if ever) see stat blocks of children (for understandable reasons). All we're using to divine the inherent or learned nature of any racial ability is our intuition and the assumptions from the narratives of previous iterations of the race. And for any ability we assume as genetic, it's trivial to create a narrative where it's a learned/taught/granted by cultural rite ability. (And vice-versa!)

 

[CreamCloud0]

I think the point here is that the racial/subrace rules don't do anything to distinguish between aspects that are genetic, that which are the product of upbringing, or that which require both.

Characters start as young adults, and we rarely (if ever) see stat blocks of children (for understandable reasons). All we're using to divine the inherent or learned nature of any racial ability is our intuition and the assumptions from the narratives of previous iterations of the race. And for any ability we assume as genetic, it's trivial to create a narrative where it's a learned/taught/granted by cultural rite ability. (And vice-versa!)

yeah that's fair, i do think it would be for the overall improvement for the game for them to separate species and culture mechanics into two distinct build choices, but i think that's not a discussion we need to have again in this thread.

 

[Corinnguard]

I think the point here is that the racial/subrace rules don't do anything to distinguish between aspects that are genetic, that which are the product of upbringing, or that which require both.

This is probably one of the reasons why EN Publishing decided to split race up into heritage and culture in Level Up. Traits that are commonly held by all Dwarves, for instance, are a part of their heritage and therefore are genetic. Then there are traits within a given heritage that aren't commonly held by every member of that heritage. These are represented by the heritage gifts and paragon gifts in Level Up, which are essentially 1st and 10th racial feats.

Dwarf | Level Up

a5e.tools

Traits that are a product of upbringing are cultural traits. And these traits aren't tied exclusively to a single heritage. So you could have an elf who was raised in a Mountain Dwarf culture, and who has their cultural traits instead of those belonging to one of the elven culture (High, Wood, Shadow and Eladrin).

 

[TwoSix]

yeah that's fair, i do think it would be for the overall improvement for the game for them to separate species and culture mechanics into two distinct build choices, but i think that's not a discussion we need to have again in this thread.

I think the question I would raise is this. Is the desire to separate the two (genetic and cultural traits) driven purely by a need to create a more coherent narrative around how the race or subrace lives in the setting? Is it a primarily simulationist agenda at work?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think the question I would raise is this. Is the desire to separate the two (genetic and cultural traits) driven purely by a need to create a more coherent narrative around how the race or subrace lives in the setting? Is it a primarily simulationist agenda at work?

I see it as a simulationist agenda at work, and happily so.

I'm probably wrong about that, but I'm very happy that nod to simulation was included.

 

[Corinnguard]

I think the question I would raise is this. Is the desire to separate the two (genetic and cultural traits) driven purely by a need to create a more coherent narrative around how the race or subrace lives in the setting? Is it a primarily simulationist agenda at work?

I think it's the former because the split presents another RL aspect to the RPG.

 

[TwoSix]

I see it as a simulationist agenda at work, and happily so.

That's fine by me, I just like to make sure there's clarity on exactly what the ask is.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I think the question I would raise is this. Is the desire to separate the two (genetic and cultural traits) driven purely by a need to create a more coherent narrative around how the race or subrace lives in the setting? Is it a primarily simulationist agenda at work?

and i'd say does the motive truly matter? the result is fundamentally the same: people get more ways to more precisely customise their characters in the ways they want, more character stories are able to be protrayed more accurately to the player's concept.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's fine by me, I just like to make sure there's clarity on exactly what the ask is.

My ask is almost always for more simulation.