D&D (2024) One D&D Permanently Removes The Term 'Race'

In line with many other tabletop roleplaying games, such as Pathfinder or Level Up, One D&D is removing the term 'race'. Where Pathfinder uses 'Ancestry' and Level Up uses 'Heritage', One D&D will be using 'Species'.

Moving On From 'Race' in the 2024 Core Rulebooks

We understand "race" is a problematic term that has had prejudiced links between real world people and the fantasy peoples of D&D worlds.

www.dndbeyond.com

In a blog post, WotC announced that "We have made the decision to move on from using the term "race" everywhere in One D&D, and we do not intend to return to that term."

 

[Micah Sweet]

I dont think its fear of a lawsuit, but fear of impression. If WotC goes ancestry then it looks like they are following Paizo's lead. If WotC makes their own change they can say this is how we are doing it.

I suspect its too late for people not to think they're following Paizo's (and EN Publishing's) lead on this issue.

 

[Charlaquin]

We have subclasses, which could just as easily been called archetypes or specializations.

Subclass is less problematic because it doesn’t refer to a people. But I wouldn’t be opposed to using archetype or specialization instead.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's a question springing from an anecdote. Maybe instead of snark, answer the question?

At my table, none of my players are aware of these raging internet controversies either. When I brought it up, opinions varied, much in the way they do here on the forums. Some of my players thought changing the terminology "stupid" . . . others agreed it was long past due.

That's my anecdote!

My players know about it, but their opinions tend to range from, "that's stupid" to "whatever".

 

[CleverNickName]

I wouldn't mind getting rid of "sub-" as a prefix for class and race. They could throw "half-" onto the heap with it as well AFAIAC.

 

[MarkB]

Heritage, Ancestry and Lineage are too specific. They're used to describe specific bloodlines, not entire populations. And they have connotations with members of nobility being concerned with tracking bloodlines and maintaining purity of lineage, which isn't really any better a look than "race".

Species, at least in common English usage, is relatively uncharged and politically neutral, and the average layperson has a decent idea of what it is likely to mean in context. It works.

 

[bedir than]

1D&D versions of peoples that used to be subraces are presented as full races (species) therein

While One D&D didn't list them as subspecies, there are in fact sub species and not full writeups for the various elves, various dwarves, various dragonborn, various gnomes

 

[CreamCloud0]

I’m fine with species, it’s accurate to what it’s identifying so it’s good enough for me.

lineage and ancestry sound too specific IMO like you’re tracing back your family tree rather than your general biology,
heritage sounds like it’s describing your culture as much as your biology and I thought those two things were something that people wanted to detangle from each other (EG:if i want to be a dwarf raised by elves why would I have dwarven weapon proficiency, is it genetic or something?)

 

[Li Shenron]

Finally something I like from OD&D! I would have preferred Creature but I am ok with Species.

 

[Charlaquin]

While One D&D didn't list them as subspecies, there are in fact sub species and not full writeups for the various elves, various dwarves, various dragonborn, various gnomes

Point being, they do seem to be discontinuing use of the “sub” prefix.

 

[AnotherGuy]

My players know about it, but their opinions tend to range from, "that's stupid" to "whatever".

Same. One of my players actually welcomed the change since it was linguistically correct, but when he googled to see WotC's reason for the change, thought it was terrible.