D&D (2024) One D&D Cleric and Species playtest survey is live.

[Mistwell]

I've said before Origins are the only term broad enough to cover stuff like Autognomes, Warforged, to other weirder things, things were biological terms don't make sense.

Creature Type: Construct (Warforged) works great for that.

Origins works OK but is still a bit clunky if you started out as one thing, like Mountain Dwarf, and then transformed into another thing, like reincarnated into a halfling. Is your "Origin" really halfling? Sort of. It's the origin of what you look like right now. But it's not how your experiences originated. You may still count yourself a member of the Mountain Dwarf society and be accepted by that society as a Mountain Dwarf. Or you may join a halfling community. Or you might be an outcast from both. But describing it as your origin doesn't seem to work as well as simply describing your current creature type, with origin and heritage and ancestry information being left for a background description.

 

[Mistwell]

Still hate Species, but if they're not going to use Lineage or Ancestry, I suppose it's probably the best choice. It's still inaccurate and comes off too much as sci-fi for my taste.

And I still don't understand why people like lineage and ancestry, when it's tied strictly to who or what your parents were, not allowing for what you are to be different from what they were. It straight-up doesn't function for the simple existing spell of reincarnation, and gets even worse when it's a new type of thing which is chosen as a transformation from an old type of thing. Why would modern D&D tie the concept of what you are now to what your parents were, knowing the direction of creature types is heading towards making transformations from one type of thing to another type a thing more common over time?

 

[Mistwell]

Huh? Interesting.
This convo made me realize that a single term may not be best but different ones based upon context would work better.

Well and now you're getting into another field of headaches. Particularly as the game gets more tied in with a database, you want consistent terms for PC designations.

 

[overgeeked]

And I still don't understand why people like lineage and ancestry, when it's tied strictly to who or what your parents were, not allowing for what you are to be different from what they were. It straight-up doesn't function for the simple existing spell of reincarnation, and gets even worse when it's a new type of thing which is chosen as a transformation from an old type of thing. Why would modern D&D tie the concept of what you are now to what your parents were, knowing the direction of creature types is heading towards making transformations from one type of thing to another type a thing more common over time?

Because what your parents were largely determines what you are in a genetic sense. Ancestry is just as functional as species for that. It’s just a more fantasy sounding word to the sci-fi sounding species. Polymorph and wild shape temporarily change you but reincarnation permanently changes you. The word used for what’s changed in those instances doesn’t really matter beyond what sounds or feels better given the context.

 

[Mistwell]

Because what your parents were largely determines what you are in a genetic sense. Ancestry is just as functional as species for that. It’s just a more fantasy sounding word to the sci-fi sounding species. Polymorph and wild shape temporarily change you but reincarnation permanently changes you. The word used for what’s changed in those instances doesn’t really matter beyond what sounds or feels better given the context.

Right, but the game is drifting towards not necessarily designating you by what your genetics were when you were born. Much like our own society is drifting away from placing higher level importance on what your genetics say you were when you were born. I think the game is going to see more options which the PC transforms into, leaving behind their prior type and becoming a new type totally unrelated to the old type. New forms created by a pact with an otherworldly being, or by powerful magics, etc..

I absolutely agree with you that species sounds more sci-fi than fantasy. It's why I have been advocating for "Creature Type" as the descriptor. "Creature" is fantasy-sounding. It's even ore fantasy-sounding than Ancestry. But it applies even if you're now entirely different than what you were originally born. If you were born a Mountain Dwarf but were reincarnated into a Halfling, your ancestry is Mountain Dwarf but your Creature Type is Halfling. The later however is the relevant term for what you are now, what stat changes and powers apply to your PC, etc.. The former is just something you'd want to describe in your background information.

 

[Lojaan]

I think species can totally be fantasy sounding. You just gotta think of it in a ye Olde, alchemist, "origin of the species", type way. The word has been in use since the 16th century after all. I get that's not mediaeval, but that sort of 'Shakespeare era' fits depictions of places like Waterdeep and Balders Gate so the vibe can still fit.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Bypassing form validation on order to submit a longer entry does not guarantee that the database field it is probably getting written to won't simply limit the IMSERT to the number of characters the form tried to benforce. There is a good chance the excess goes away or even that it simply fails to store the entire text box depending on how the code is written to at re it when you click next

[pedantry]True... but CLOBs. Also, NoSQL databases. MongoDB, for example, limits BSON documents to 16 Mb.[/pedantry]

But yes, that's likely the case. It's also weird that the text field has a word limit instead of a character limit UI validation rule.

 

[Chaosmancer]

My biggest factor for the term was how it would be used in-character, in-game.

Sub-type doesn't work. It is too codified as a game term. Sure, if we were ONLY considering it in terms of a game with no RP elements, it would be the best choice, but we aren't.

And so, I originally went with Kind.... but it doesn't work. At least not well. "After you pick your class, pick your kind" sounds awkward, but even worse would be something like "We have an inter-kind marriage". It just... doesn't flow properly.

Species isn't great either, I would prefer origin to cover things like warforged and other created beings, but between the three it is actually the most natural to use in the ways that we would use it AFTER character creation.

 

[tetrasodium]

My biggest factor for the term was how it would be used in-character, in-game.

Sub-type doesn't work. It is too codified as a game term. Sure, if we were ONLY considering it in terms of a game with no RP elements, it would be the best choice, but we aren't.

And so, I originally went with Kind.... but it doesn't work. At least not well. "After you pick your class, pick your kind" sounds awkward, but even worse would be something like "We have an inter-kind marriage". It just... doesn't flow properly.

Species isn't great either, I would prefer origin to cover things like warforged and other created beings, but between the three it is actually the most natural to use in the ways that we would use it AFTER character creation.

My initial thought was also that type/subtype didn't work but it really does if they go back to useful type: subtype, subtype like "Humanoid: Elf, fey" for elf & "humanoid: Dwarf, Elemental" or whatever for dwarf.

 

[Yaarel]

My biggest factor for the term was how it would be used in-character, in-game.

Sub-type doesn't work. It is too codified as a game term. Sure, if we were ONLY considering it in terms of a game with no RP elements, it would be the best choice, but we aren't.

And so, I originally went with Kind.... but it doesn't work. At least not well. "After you pick your class, pick your kind" sounds awkward, but even worse would be something like "We have an inter-kind marriage". It just... doesn't flow properly.

Species isn't great either, I would prefer origin to cover things like warforged and other created beings, but between the three it is actually the most natural to use in the ways that we would use it AFTER character creation.

"Subtype" is awkward.

But "Type" can work.

Elf, Dwarf, Dragonborn, etcetera, are Types.

Celestial, Fey, Elemental, etcetera are Origins.

Humanoid, Construct, etcetera are Forms.

There seems a way to make these descriptors work systematically.

The Elf Type is a Fey Humanoid.

The Human Type is a Natural Humanoid.

Possibly, Ethereal (Fey, Shadow), Astral (Celestial, Fiend), Elemental (Fire, Water) have specific Suborigins.

Possibly Natural is an Origin with (Ooze, Plant, Beast) as Suborigins.



Something like this. Of course, even using the term Species where Type is, can benefit from the same systematization of the nomenclature.