D&D (2024) What new jargon do you want to replace "Race"?

[Mecheon]

+2 Str/+1 Con, put your highest in Con, and bobs your uncle.

But he's gotta be +2 Con, +1 Charisma (for how well he handles the crowds, y'see) and then the +1 for strength. True wrestling stats

I do still remain thinking it helps in making races/species/schmorps more distinct with how they're designed outside of "Okay this is the one with the +2 to that and the +1 to that" that sort of resulted in superfulous options with no real mechanical heft behind them outside of "Okay, here's your two stat choices". Heck knows its going to reduce the number of Random Elf Number 251 we used to have as well

 

[Hriston]

That is a fair point. I do believe it was type in OD&D but it has been a while since I've read that version. I also can't recall exactly how those details keyed to Chainmail. But I was thinking more Basic set onward into Rules Cyclopedia

Chainmail uses the term Type as a heading on the Fantasy Reference Table as well as on the table showing the different figure scales to use with different kinds of fantasy creatures. The Holmes Basic Set (1977) doesn't seem to use the term race either and just refers to dwarves, elves, etc. Race seems to have come in with AD&D Monster Manual (also 1977). I haven't checked the supplements. Holmes also treats class as separate from the type of character (race) you choose. It isn't until the Moldvay Basic Set (1981) that race as class becomes a thing. I don't know if Moldvay uses the term race. I suppose not considering dwarf, elf, etc. are classes.

And they could go the Moldvay direction, and I wouldn't necessarily object as I like basic and think it actually much easier for people new to the hobby as well. But I would add that big mechanical changes like that, as well as changes that make race meaningless or make it more complicated and customizable, have impact on playability, how wide of a player base they retain, how the game feels, etc. I think the two best options, no matter what it is called, is to keep its mechanical function that its had (which admittedly has changed somewhat) or go the Basic direction (which I like but also think could be a tough sell, as that was always one of the bigger hurdles of getting people to play Basic campaigns). Ultimately they will do what they think works based on feedback I am assuming. I just think if they chase what other games are already doing, and move away from that core Race+Class (including the simple packages of abilities those have), it has weakened what makes the game tick. For example there were an explosion of option books in the 90s that chased more skill based games (and admittedly they went in a skill based direction in 3E onward). But I find the game works much better if you go back to periods when it didn't have skills (there are games that are built around skills and do them much better as a result).

I should say though, I don't play 5E, I am probably much more old school in my sensibilities, so I don't expect my thoughts to translate into anything as I well could be quite out of touch with what the present player base wants.

In defense of a Moldvay or Basic approach, when I was in highschool the most popular campaign in my area was with a GM who strictly ran the game with Rules Cyclopedia. Part of the popularity was due to the GMs charisma (he was just very good with people and generating interest in things), but I also think a large part was how easy it is for non-gamers to make characters with basic. Whereas AD&D at the time took conservable explanation, people had to make a few characters before they really got it, and there was quite a bit more to read in the book for the players to get started. I don't know if they could go back to that as the default, but I do think there is a case to be made for that simpler structure having more broad appeal if they want to reach a wider audience.

I don't think it would work in 5th Ed. to have races as their own classes, but maybe an approach where race is something that can be expressed differently in each class might work in place of races having their own mechanics separate from class.

 

[Yaarel]

Make size depend on the chosen Ability Scores. Something like.



SIZE PREREQUISITE

If both STR and CON are at least: your Size is
1: Tiny
5: Small
9: Medium (Lightwieght)
13: Medium (Heavyweight) − Powerful Build
17: Large
21: Huge
25: Gargantuan
29: Gargantuan (Vast)

For example, some Dwarf are shorter but more massively bulky, whence the Size.

A player who wants a Small Halfling character can place a score of 8 in either Str or Con.

Alternatively, Small might represent frailness or feebleness for a taller character.

 

[Yaarel]

Does anyone know for sure? Most of the actors in the Lord of the Rings movies who play Hobbits are above 4 feet tall and would count as Medium size in D&D?

 

[Cadence]

Does anyone know for sure? Most of the actors in the Lord of the Rings movies who play Hobbits are above 4 feet tall and would count as Medium size in D&D?

The actors were filmed to look shorter.

 

[Yaarel]

Judging by fans, the Tolkien Hobbit actors seem to be between 4'5 and 4'11. But Tolkien describes the Hobbit as between 2' and 4'.

For D&D purposes, a Halfling can easily be both "Small" and "Medium (Lightweight)", conceptually.

So, the player can choose whether they want a Small or Medium Size Halfling, depending on the abilities that they want to assign. If the hardier Halflings tend to be the ones who who venture, that is probably fine. And if a character is truly massive, then there might be an atavistic expression from certain obscure ancestors who were Dwarf or Human or so.

Meanwhile, use the Size catagories as vague ballparks, and let the player decide what the Size means exactly for ones own character.



Here is an other version of the SIZE PREREQUISITE table. Same idea, but more ballpark and less granularity. It is more straightforward. It gives more wiggle room for players who want a Small character.



If both STR and CON are at least: your Size is
1: Tiny
6: Small
11: Medium
16: Large
21: Huge
26: Gargantuan

Note, a Tiny Pixie is not a normal player character option, and would unusually have either Str or Con be a score of 5 or lower − probably 5 Strength since players are loath to give up Constitution. Typically, these Pixie characters would be poor at classes that require Strength (but who knows, perhaps some Dex build works well), but would be fully competent at caster classes, generally speaking, that can dump Strength.

Besides the extreme outlier of a Tiny character, the player generally decides the Size of the character by choosing the stats.



Generally, Size (Str-Con) ≈ muscle mass (ignoring obesity).

But I hate guess-timating weight during gameplay, and would never do it. However, I would keep muscle mass in mind when deciding the flavor for a particular character.



The OneD&D Players Handbook can, when referring to the Abilities, show pictures as examples of what Sizes can look like, with variations, some shorter and burlier and some taller and lankier.

 

[Hex08]

There are parts of it in the past the were deliberately intended to be racist.

That's a stretch. You are passing judgements on people involved in older versions of the game with no real evidence for your claim. There may well be parts that, with the modern eye, now appear to be racist but that doesn't mean they were intended to be such. Times were different and while casual racism may well have existed in the past accusing people of being deliberately racist is a step too far and wrong, both because you don't know what was going on in their heads and because such accusations are ethically dubious.

 

[Yaarel]

Gygax, in his AD&D Monster Manual in 1974, uses both terms, "Species" and "Race". He uses these two terms interchangeably.

Species = Race

For example.

(29) "The ten species of dragons have three general size categories (small, average, and huge). ... This size determination indicates the number of hit dice a dragon has."

(33) "The race of green dragons prefer to locate their underground lairs in or near woods or forests of the bleaker wilder sort if possible."

(34) "The red dragon is usually found dwelling in great hills or mountainous regions. As with most others of this species, they make their lairs in subterranean coves and similar places."



Reallife scientific taxonomy is a normal part of the D&D tradition.

(22) Note, Gygax refers to the scientific taxonomy of his day, albeit today the nomenclature is shown to be imprecise and no longer in use: "Dinosaurs are reptiles, ... descended from a variety of the species called thecodonts. The two orders of dinosaurs are saurischians and ornisthischians." Notice, a later different species can descend from an earlier species.

(82) "Woolly Rhinoceros: A large, very aggressive species of rhinoceros which roams the cold temperate and subarctic regions of the Pleistocene epoch, the woolly rhino conforms to the characteristics of its modern relatives."

(61) "Mountain lion: This creature is not actually a true lion, but a species of great cat."

(87) "Giant Shark (Megalodon): Giant white sharks and prehistoric species of sharks range in size from 20' to 50', the largest being the prehistoric sharks."



Examples of humanlike species.

Note, in AD&D jargon, the terms "Species" and "Race" are the same meaning. Gygax sometimes refers to the human Species and sometimes the human Race. (Gygax can get into trouble when describing some humanlike Species to be as if a culture. But he does mean Species whenever he says Race.)

(39) "All half-elves are of human stock. They are handsome folk, with the good features of each of their races. They mingle freely with either race."

(96) "Treants are strangely related to humans and trees, combining features of both species." In AD&D, the human is a "species", and the treant apparently relates to a specific species of tree.

(53) "Koolinth: A marine species of hobgoblin with gills. They are similar to their land-dwelling cousins in most respect."

(60) "Rumor has it leprechauns are a species of halfling with a strong strain of pixie."



Maybe certain Settings prefer the antiquated flavor of the term "Race", but the D&D game itself often employs the jargon "Species".

 

[codo]

That's a stretch. You are passing judgements on people involved in older versions of the game with no real evidence for your claim. There may well be parts that, with the modern eye, now appear to be racist but that doesn't mean they were intended to be such. Times were different and while casual racism may well have existed in the past accusing people of being deliberately racist is a step too far and wrong, both because you don't know what was going on in their heads and because such accusations are ethically dubious.

Take a look at Orcs of Thar and Chief Sitting Drool before telling me that D&D never deliberately intended to be racist.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Does anyone know for sure? Most of the actors in the Lord of the Rings movies who play Hobbits are above 4 feet tall and would count as Medium size in D&D?

They used to have a height and weight chart in 2E. Might be useful. Weight would likely be another factor into creature size (looks like the upper limit for Halfling in that edition was something like 72 pounds):