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

[Henadic Theologian]

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.

 

[codo]

I think "ancestry" will never be an option. The purpose of "species" or "subtype" and the like are to be purely * biological* descriptions. Seperate from background, culture, history etc... Ancestry has all that stuff very much mixed in so is not applicable.

Species was jarring when I first heard it but I'm used to it now. Subtype is pretty decent because it is clearly a game term.

I think all three are fine. Like you said the important part is that they are all biological not cultural descriptions.

I still think species is the best choice because it is much more clearly defined and less confusing. Even if someone has never played D&D or any RPGs at all, if you tell them, "My character is species __." they will understand what you are talking about, because species is a common real word term. "My kind or subtype is __." is a lot more vague and confusing. Kind and subtype are less well defined and use a more specific in-game definition.

Bottom line if you have common real world word, that works for describing game elements, you should use it, instead of defining new in-game jargon.

 

[Yaarel]

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.

If reallife scientists would describe new lifeforms that are nonbiological, they would use the term "species".

Fantasy lifeforms − Constructs like Warforged and Autognomes, Elementals like Genasi, and Undead like Reborn − can graft into the reallife taxonomy as new noncellular "kingdoms" of life.

Ultimately, "species" means a "kind" and applies to the species of any clade of the taxonomy.

 

[codo]

If reallife scientists would describe new lifeforms that are nonbiological, they would use the term "species".

Fantasy lifeforms − Constructs like Warforged and Autognomes, Elementals like Genasi, and Undead like Reborn − can graft into the reallife taxonomy as new noncellular "kingdoms" of life.

Ultimately, "species" means a "kind" and applies to the species of any clade of the taxonomy.

In science fiction it is completely normal to refer to carbon-based species, silicone based species, or even energy based species. The default terminology is alien species. In the real world we haven't found any aliens yet, but when scientists are talking about the potential, they use alien species. When NASA was talking about water on Mars and the potential for life, potential alien species was the phrase they use.

 

[Shiroiken]

Species was jarring when I first heard it but I'm used to it now. Subtype is pretty decent because it is clearly a game term.

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.

Subtype is terrible because it skips over the Creature Type. Since Humanoid is no longer the default, you'd have to use the full Creature Type/Subtype to replace Race. Not only is that a mouthful, but I was already sick of "subclass" and subrace" instead of Archetype and Ethnicity because WotC can't/won't be creative.

 

[Yaarel]

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.

Subtype is terrible because it skips over the Creature Type. Since Humanoid is no longer the default, you'd have to use the full Creature Type/Subtype to replace Race. Not only is that a mouthful, but I was already sick of "subclass" and subrace" instead of Archetype and Ethnicity because WotC can't/won't be creative.

It they went with the nomenclature of "type", I would prefer:

Type ← Race
Supertype ← Creature Type

(And I would prefer the Planar Origins group separately from the Creature Type.)

 

[Clint_L]

Whatever term they land on will be fine - we'll all get used to it quickly and forget that there was a huge argument. If this is the biggest controversy to dog OneD&D, then WotC are in good shape.

 

[Kinematics]

I went with Kind as my first choice. Not as, "What is your Kind?" — using the term as an explicit designator — but as in, "What kind of creature are you?" A simple, natural, inoffensive question because it's used as an adjective, not a noun.

I still think Species is the worst possible choice in a fantasy system.

 

[Baba]

I’m a bit annoyed that I have to log in to answer the survey, and that there is nothing about privacy in the FAQ. I like Wizards and their product, want them to succeed, and would like to spend my time giving them feedback for free, and they are just about the only company I am willing to do that for. But I don’t want to help them build a profile on me.

I wonder if this survey is even legal to distribute to eu citizens? It’s not anonymous (since you have to log in), it collects personal data (in the broad sense of the GDPR), and it doesn’t provide any information about how that personal data is procesed, like storage period and purposes of processing.

Edit: I started the survey now, and I see they refer to the general Wizards terms of use and Privacy Policy, so it’s probably legal. Still annoying, though.

The original d&d next surveys were anonymous, I think?

 

[Hriston]

5th Ed. already has a term for the parenthetical descriptor after a creature's type. It's called a "tag" not a "subtype". I still chose it as my second choice because I prefer it to species.