D&D (2024) Should 2014 Half Elves and Half Orcs be added to the 2025 SRD?

[DEFCON 1]

One can argue that species do not need to be represented by rules at all, but currently they are removing them from the game.

That's only if one believes something has to be represented mechanically for it to exist in-world. Which is the discussion we are all having. Some say yes, others say no.

Gold dwarves used to be represented mechanically in 5E14 (via the Hill Dwarf sub-race). Now they are not. Did all of them suddenly disappear from Faerun? Or does one just instead state that within the fiction of the Forgotten Realms that certain characters are gold dwarves as opposed to shield dwarves?

And what about tabaxi? Did they exist as a people in D&D before they had a species mechanic given to them? Or was it only after Volo's Guide to Monsters came out did they suddenly just show up in all the different settings by popping into existence?

It's this idea that some people are making that something only exists in the game IF there is a mechanic for it that I push against. Because there are thousands of things that exist in D&D that do not have mechanics-- or more specifically-- do not have mechanics as produced by Wizards of the Coast. So saying it is a necessity for the game on the whole is just not true.

Would some people find it lovely to have half-elf mechanics in 5E24 as produced by WotC? Sure. But do they HAVE to have them? Of course not. Because they can either bring forward the species from 5E14 if they need it, or from any other 3rd party producer of D&D material that might have already made a 5E24 half-elf. Or even one that they made themselves.

At the end of the day... WotC may end up producing a half-elf statblock at some point. And so people will get what they ultimately wanted. And that's cool. But that's how it is with all game mechanics... you make due without them when they don't exist and then you choose to use them when they do.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That's only if one believes something has to be represented mechanically for it to exist in-world. Which is the discussion we are all having. Some say yes, others say no.

Gold dwarves used to be represented mechanically in 5E14 (via the Hill Dwarf sub-race). Now they are not. Did all of them suddenly disappear from Faerun? Or does one just instead state that within the fiction of the Forgotten Realms that certain characters are gold dwarves as opposed to shield dwarves?

There are no dwarven subraces in 5.5, right? So this just means hill dwarves are culture of dwarves, just like humans have many cultures. I'm fine with this, I suggested doing the same for elves (though preferably via flexible mechanics that allow some variety.) Half-eves however are not a culture of elves or humans, they are a distinct thing whose defining feature is that they're mix of the two yet fully neither.

And what about tabaxi? Did they exist as a people in D&D before they had a species mechanic given to them? Or was it only after Volo's Guide to Monsters came out did they suddenly just show up in all the different settings by popping into existence?

I really don't know. At some point they indeed did not exist and then were invented. And when they didn't have rules, they did not truly exist in the game, even though you'd refluff a wood elf into a tabaxi or something.

It's this idea that some people are making that something only exists in the game IF there is a mechanic for it that I push against. Because there are thousands of things that exist in D&D that do not have mechanics-- or more specifically-- do not have mechanics as produced by Wizards of the Coast. So saying it is a necessity for the game on the whole is just not true.

You can refluff an orc into a klingon, but this doesn't mean klingons actually exist in D&D.

Would some people find it lovely to have half-elf mechanics in 5E24 as produced by WotC? Sure. But do they HAVE to have them? Of course not. Because they can either bring forward the species from 5E14 if they need it, or from any other 3rd party producer of D&D material that might have already made a 5E24 half-elf. Or even one that they made themselves.

At the end of the day... WotC may end up producing a half-elf statblock at some point. And so people will get what they ultimately wanted. And that's cool. But that's how it is with all game mechanics... you make due without them when they don't exist and then you choose to use them when they do.

And what people in this thread are doing, is expressing a wish for WotC to publish those rules. Personally I don't care, I indeed can easily enough make my own if I need to, I rewrote all the species rules for my setting anyway. Though I find the erasure of mixed heritage representation to be distasteful.

 

[pemerton]

those few mechanics might be a feeble foundation for differentiating them as a species but at least they ARE a real tangible foundation

What does one want a Half-Elf to be?

The main literature on Half-Elves that I'm familiar with is JRRT. And there, a Half-Elf is a union of the two principal peoples of Middle Earth and therefore a union of what were originally conceived as distinct ways of being with distinct fates awaiting them. Elves are somewhat other-worldly, and the exile of the Noldor from Valinor and their conflict with Morgoth teaches them harsh truths about the world. Human, on the other hand, are worldly from the outset (given the role that death plays in their lives) and from the Elves they learn about higher concerns and more noble aspirations.

A Half-Elf is a union of these different strands. Only a Half-Elf could appeal to the Valar for aid, as only a Half-Elf could speak for the fates of both peoples bound up in the conflicts of the First Age. So Half-Elves are not just a union, or a synthesis, but in some ways a transcendence.

I don't recall the DL version of the Half-Elf story as well, but I think Tanis also is a type of union of worldly concern and otherworldly ideal.

If this is what a Half-Elf is, then the idea that a couple of bonus proficiencies is a tangible foundation doesn't seem that plausible to me.

As long as there is any representation of different capabilities between species in any area, then it will mean that there is biologically essentialist "superiority" regarding that thing. And not wanting to have that is a coherent stance, but then let's be honest about what it actually means: all species mechanics must be removed, species can only be cosmetic.

@AnotherGuy already gave us some examples, upthread, of how a difference in heritage might be more than cosmetic, but not represented via differences in stats bonuses.

Narrative concepts not backed by mechanics are simply not enough for everyone. That's group improv, not an RPG with rules.

Just as "it's either stat bonuses or mere colour" is a false dichotomy, so is this one.

I mean, there are no mechanics in D&D for friendship, family membership, etc - but these need not be mere colour. They can establish stakes, feed into how difficulties are set or advantage granted, etc. Likewise for being a Half-Elf.

 

[Hussar]

The fact that they are gone. There is no half-elf in the 2024 PHB. If it's there(and I thought they pulled their crappy idea), it's an elf or human with pig lipstick painted on it. You can paint lipstick on a pig(elf or human) to try and make it look half-elven, but it will still be pig(elf or human).

You are factually wrong.

They are listed right there with the other species. Granted there is no longer a separate section for them where they are just elves but a bit less, but nope you are wrong. I can make a half elf right out of the phb and it will be at least as mechanically distinct as the 2014 one.

 

[pemerton]

You are factually wrong.

They are listed right there with the other species.

Given that this claim somewhat rebuts a good chunk of what has been said in this thread, are you able to elaborate for the benefit of those who don't have the book ready to hand?

 

[Micah Sweet]

What does one want a Half-Elf to be?

The main literature on Half-Elves that I'm familiar with is JRRT. And there, a Half-Elf is a union of the two principal peoples of Middle Earth and therefore a union of what were originally conceived as distinct ways of being with distinct fates awaiting them. Elves are somewhat other-worldly, and the exile of the Noldor from Valinor and their conflict with Morgoth teaches them harsh truths about the world. Human, on the other hand, are worldly from the outset (given the role that death plays in their lives) and from the Elves they learn about higher concerns and more noble aspirations.

A Half-Elf is a union of these different strands. Only a Half-Elf could appeal to the Valar for aid, as only a Half-Elf could speak for the fates of both peoples bound up in the conflicts of the First Age. So Half-Elves are not just a union, or a synthesis, but in some ways a transcendence.

I don't recall the DL version of the Half-Elf story as well, but I think Tanis also is a type of union of worldly concern and otherworldly ideal.

If this is what a Half-Elf is, then the idea that a couple of bonus proficiencies is a tangible foundation doesn't seem that plausible to me.

@AnotherGuy already gave us some examples, upthread, of how a difference in heritage might be more than cosmetic, but not represented via differences in stats bonuses.

Just as "it's either stat bonuses or mere colour" is a false dichotomy, so is this one.

I mean, there are no mechanics in D&D for friendship, family membership, etc - but these need not be mere colour. They can establish stakes, feed into how difficulties are set or advantage granted, etc. Likewise for being a Half-Elf.

Generally speaking, D&D tends towards mechanical backing for things that physically exist in the world (like half-elves) and away for social things (like friends and family connections). I know your preferred style doesn't operate that way, but there it is. A lot of people don't mainstream my preferred style either.

 

[Maxperson]

A physical difference is not the same as being superior mentally.

It's a distinction without a difference. Germany during WWII used physical superiority as a focus for their racist atrocities. Racism is racism, whether it's based on physical or mental differences doesn't really matter.

 

[Maxperson]

Reskinning is just one of those unbridgeable aesthetic divides in the playerbase.

I love reskinning in general, as do quite a few of my players, but I’ve known tons of gamers who either just don’t get it or actively feel like it’s roleplaying incorrectly.

For sure. I've never said it was bad roleplay or incorrect roleplay. It's just not for me.

 

[Maxperson]

And the other side of the argument is that it isn't game mechanics that decide what something is or isn't... but what they are identified as.

You say that a character that is identified as a half-elf in the game's campaign world and story isn't actually a half-elf if their mechanical representation is that of a human or an elf. If the mechanics are of a human then they ARE a human, regardless of what they are called in-game.

Which is your opinion of course. And you are free to have it. But it doesn't mean that is the only way to look at it, nor that your way is the correct one. There is something to be said about accepting what a character identifies as, regardless of what their equipment might suggest they "should be".

I don't care what the character identifies as. If your halfling PC wants to identify as bugbear, go for it. That's between the PC and the game world. Outside of the fiction, though, your "half-elf" is pure human or pure elf.

 

[Hussar]

Given that this claim somewhat rebuts a good chunk of what has been said in this thread, are you able to elaborate for the benefit of those who don't have the book ready to hand?

On my phone right now so no. But if you go to DnD beyond and look up half elf it’s right there.

Or to put it another way, how do folks know it’s pick either human or elf mechanics?