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

[TwoSix]

Besides, give me the rules if I want to play a Fighter in 5e.

2014?
Level Up?
TotV?
2024?

The answer cannot be 'Yes'.

The answer can and should be “Yes”. If it was a true novice, I’d simply present them the option in whatever book or electronic format was most convenient.

 

[Scribe]

The answer can and should be “Yes”. If it was a true novice, I’d simply present them the option in whatever book or electronic format was most convenient.

No, the answer is not yes. The 2014 version is replaced, and the LU or TotV versions dont even enter into the discussion frankly outside of places like this.

You go to Chapters.ca, you look up "Player's Handbook" and you see that the 2014 version is unable for online sale, because its been replaced with the 2024 version.

You go to Amazon.ca, you look it up, and you see that "A new Edition exists for this product."

The PHB is now the 2024 version, and its replaced, or omitted options that used to exist.

The Half-Elf, does not exist in the current editions PHB.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The way to clarify if half-elf is playable is to ask the group or DM if it’s playable.

What I think people are really asking is if half-elves are part of the “meta-setting” of D&D still with the rules evolution. Like, if BG3 had come out a few years later would Shadowheart not have been a half-elf.

No, what people are asking is whether there is half-elf species section printed on 2024 PHB. And there isn't.

 

[Hussar]

Awesome. I haven't run Dungeons & Dragons (2014 or 2024) for years now...

By that metric, I haven’t run DnD ever.

 

[Hussar]

You do realize that there have been 6 other editions if you count 3.5 as separate, right? It's well known, personally experienced, and seen lots of DM posts here about it, that a lot of DMs limit what can be used to books of the edition that they are running only. And as I said, a number also limit it to the core three.

I arrived at the "number" many, because it's factual.

How is a limit on what can be used in a game a problem?

First, it's not a presumption. It's fact. Second, since you need a specific number for some reason, I'll fabricate one rather than just give you the truth. There are 93,614 tables that engage in the practice.

People use "many" for things like this because lots of tables do it, but we don't have exact numbers.

It’s so fun watching people try to justify forcing their preferences on others by claiming the speak for all these “many” people.

 

[Hussar]

No, you are running a 5e/5.5e/3pp game of "D&D" which is not a 2024 game, its a customized version of a D&D game from a combination of resources.

The problem being, there is no such thing as a “2024” game. That’s something edition warriors are inventing all on their own.

 

[Hussar]

No, what people are asking is whether there is half-elf species section printed on 2024 PHB. And there isn't.

Did they not put the rules for creating hybrid species in the phb?

 

[TwoSix]

No, what people are asking is whether there is half-elf species section printed on 2024 PHB. And there isn't.

If that was the question, there wouldn’t be an argument, would there?

There’s deeper semantic and conceptual questions at play here. What defines “5.5”? Is there a generally accepted definition of whether “common practice 5e” is inclusive or exclusive or pre-2024 material? What are the implications for the meta-setting of D&D moving forward?

 

[Maxperson]

I feel this is hair-splitting - can't give permission versus informing it's possible.

A DM always decides everything. That's self-evident. In the case of half-elves, but more specifically half-orcs, there was a large assumption about their birth status - I'm pretty sure if you go back, even Tanis in Dragonlance did not come from a loving household.

I'll quote from the new PHB, page 5:
"This is the 2024 version of the fifth edition Player's Handbook. If you've read the 2014, much of this will familiar, since the fundamental rules of the game are the same. But the book contains many new or redesigned elements and the version of things in this book replace versions from older books. Here are highlights: ..."

You can read that however you will choose to, and it seems you'd already made your mind up anyway. To me, that says that, since they're still calling this Fifth Edition, and a revision, that whatever is not SPECIFICALLY overwritten rules-wise still exists. They've always been clear that that is the intent - that essentially they were trying to software-patch something.

Half-elves and half-orcs are still mechanically usable right out of the PHB. The 2014 PHB is still readily available. Half-elves are still in SRD 5.1. I get that people want to clutch at their pearls, and debate what is 2025 RAW, but it's clear to me that half-elves remain every bit 5th Edition RAW in 2025 the same as if this book was merely the PHB 2 like in 4th edition.

That's not what it says. It says that the rules in the 5.5e PHB will contain many overwritten rules, and the rest are what you would find in the 5e PHB. At no point does it give permission to the player to go back and use 5e stuff that has not been reprinted. That's an assumption that the two of you are making.

The 5e stuff is not in 5.5e unless the DM allows it to be used. He doesn't have to act to exclude it. He has to act to include it.

What we have been told over and over and over and over and over again by WotC is that 5.5e will be backwards compatible with 5e, not that 5.5e is 5e and it's all usable at once unless overwritten. Backwards compatible means that if the DM allows it, 5e stuff can be used in a 5.5e game.

 

[Scribe]

It’s so fun watching people try to justify forcing their preferences on others by claiming the speak for all these “many” people.

Always. If that wasnt happening online, you would think there was a Thanos Snap.

The problem being, there is no such thing as a “2024” game. That’s something edition warriors are inventing all on their own.

Sure. Anyway, is Half-Elf in the 2024 "5.5e" PHB? I believe the answer is no, because it was removed from the new edition/errata/revision/version/decade update.