Return old-school terminology: subclass, demihuman, etc.

[Dungeonosophy]

I'm all for incorporating the best features from recent iterations. Yet, why not give them an old-school nomenclatorial twist?

What's wrong with "demihuman" and "humanoid"? I know they were dropped in 3e and replaced with the little used euphemisms: "common races" and "savage races", but demihuman and humanoid are D&D words. They were even featured on the cover of D&D books (Demihumans of the Realms and Complete Book of Humanoids). I suspect that those who only played a little bit of CD&D or AD&D still remember those words.

Don't worry, I'm not advocating THAC0 or Alignment Language.

Another example, why not call Themes Subclasses? That has a nice First Edition ring to it. I guess one snag would be if multiple Classes can take the same Subclass.

If the goal is to bring back lost players from earlier editions, it'd make sense to give the fresh mechanics some old-school terminology.

 

[Sunseeker]

I use "humanoid" all the time. Maybe it's a 4e thing? I think all 4e races are "created equal" so to speak though. Never been a big fan of "demi-human" though, just thought the term felt clunky.

If Themes actually are subclasses, I think that's way they should be called in order to clarify it. As it stands, I think Themes are more along the lines of "customization paths" than actual Subclasses. Subclass has a very codified ring to it, themes have a more wishy-washy "it is what you want it to be" feel.

 

[dkyle]

"Humanoid" is used all the time in 4E. It's one of the main categories of creatures (along with Beast, for example). No real distinction is made between "common" and "savage" races. An Orc is a Humanoid, as is an Elf.

I don't like Demi-human because "Demi-" caries a connotation of being "less than" something. See: Demigod. I think Elves, Dwarves, etc. should be treated, at least by the rules, as equal to Humans.

 

[Grydan]

4E also uses subclass, but it's something quite distinct from themes in that system.

As far as I understand what they've said about themes in the new system, it also sounds like subclass would be the wrong term for them.

Humanoid is fine (though not entirely necessary, and rather human-centric) , but I agree with [MENTION=93444]shidaku[/MENTION] and @dkyle that demi-human is one of the terms that deserved its retirement.

 

[n00bdragon]

Is there anyone so shallow that they'd prefer one game over another simply because it uses terminology from a 40 year old relic thing that is equal in all ways?

 

[Minigiant]

The way themes are being described, they aren't true sub classes. They sound more like builds than subclasses. The sharpshooter theme could be applies to many classes most likely. So there might be a fighter-sharpshooter, rogue-sharpshooter, cleric-sharpshooter, etc and the "sub" part of subclass would sound silly.

Humaniod is stills used. In 4E theere are natural humaniods as in goblins, humans, dwarves, fey humaniods as in gnomes, eladrin, and elves, elemental humaniods in efreet, slaadi, and giants, and shadow humanoids as in shadar-kai .

Demihuman. I just don't like. Especially because the term implies that the race is part-human whereas worlds that actually use the term have demihumans as better than humans.

 

[the Jester]

I'm all for incorporating the best features from recent iterations. Yet, why not give them an old-school nomenclatorial twist?

Perhaps because gamers tend to bitch and moan when the meaning of a game term has changed?

Witness 4e's saving throws: non-4e players, IME, tend to get all weird about the term saving throw as used in 4e.

What's wrong with "demihuman" and "humanoid"? I know they were dropped in 3e and replaced with the little used euphemisms: "common races" and "savage races", but demihuman and humanoid are D&D words. They were even featured on the cover of D&D books (Demihumans of the Realms and Complete Book of Humanoids). I suspect that those who only played a little bit of CD&D or AD&D still remember those words.

Why have separate terms for the two? Is the distinction because some are pc races and some aren't? Is an orc a demihuman or a humanoid, and does the answer change from a campaign in which orcs are a viable pc race to a campaign in which they aren't? What about dromites (3.5 XPH- little bug men)? Are they demihumans (as a pc race) or humanoids (as a very nonhuman yet basically human-shaped race)? What about thri-kreen? What about goblins and kobolds?

The problem with "demihuman" and "humanoid" as different terms is that there is no actual hard and fast definition of the difference, and demihuman is just another term that clutters the glossary for no gain.

Another example, why not call Themes Subclasses? That has a nice First Edition ring to it.

Because they aren't subclasses. If my theme is "gladiator" and I'm a fighter, and your theme is also "gladiator" but you're a barbarian, what exactly is "gladiator" supposed to be a subclass of?

If the goal is to bring back lost players from earlier editions, it'd make sense to give the fresh mechanics some old-school terminology.

No thanks. If the mechanic is fresh, using old-school terminology at best confuses the issue and at worst alienates some players. I don't see any real gain from your suggestion, but I certainly predict butt hurt.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

Races and Subraces in the 5e PHB?

What about the word subraces too?



Dwarf

• Hill Dwarf subrace
• Mountain Dwarf subrace
• Deep Dwarf subrace
• Duergar (Gray Dwarf) subrace

Eladrin

• High (Sun, Gold) Eladrin subrace
• Gray (Mountain, Moon, Silver) Eladrin subrace

Elf

• Wood (Copper) Elf subrace
• Wild (Green, Grugach) Elf subrace
• Dark Elf subrace (with Drow as a separate, non-Elf race, as per recent Forgotten Realms events; Drow not included in the PBH)

Halfling

• Lightfoot Halfling subrace
• Tallfellow Halfling subrace
• Deep (Stout) Halfling subrace

Gnome

• Rock Gnome subrace
• Forest Gnome subrace
• Svirfneblin (Deep Gnome) subrace

Tiefling
Dragonborn

Half-Orc
Half-Elf
(With rules for making half-breeds, quarter-breeds, and "blooded" versions of each PC class as a rules module)

 

[the Jester]

What about the word subraces too?

Now that is a meaningful term.

That said, I do not want pc drow or duergar or svirfneblin or other races that are just plain better than their parent races. If you played 1e back in the post-Unearthed Arcana days, you probably saw the same thing I did- great numbers of those three races, far in excess of their supposed rarity. Ugh.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

Now that is a meaningful term.

Ah yes, I see you're impressed! Some words are just dripping with meaning, nuance, and a certain je ne sais quoi. Sub...race...hmm!

That said, I do not want pc drow or duergar or svirfneblin or other races that are just plain better than their parent races.

Agreed.