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

[Charlaquin]

Which, if one were to do such things, might slippery slope into doing away with the idea of race/species for the humanoids and just leaving a big menu of choices to pick from with point costs for everyone: breath weapon, tremorsense, wings, darkvision, skill bonus, etc... and removing them as separate entries in the MM.

Assuming slippery slopes are bad, the question is where in between is the happy point. Does deciding which are pseudo-species (Dwarf, Elf) and which are flavoring options (High Elf, Wood Elf) and making sure none of it has to do with culture work? Maybe put the pseudo-species hybrid idea in an option box and say some tables may like that, and if so, here's what the recommendations are?

Slippery slopes are only bad if the bottom of the slope isn’t a place you want to end up. To be honest, what you describe with a sort of build-your-own-set-of-inborn-features system would be pretty cool in my opinion.

 

[Charlaquin]

Well not if they are different species. You don't see ducks mating with dogs do you?

But you do see elves mating with dwarves, gnomes with humans, halflings with dragonborn, and tieflings with genasi. Another reason species is a poor choice of words for them.

 

[Cadence]

Slippery slopes are only bad if the bottom of the slope isn’t a place you want to end up. To be honest, what you describe with a sort of build-your-own-set-of-inborn-features system would be pretty cool in my opinion.

Ok, and now my brain is off and running. (Possibly in an attempt to not grade papers. Also, as usual, thank you for all of your insights!)

If you did mush them altogether, is there a difference in having regions where most of the residents have at least parts of a particular feature package [flight, darkvision, powerful build, more skills to make up for not having anything else, etc...] any different than having a game region where most people have the same subset of skin, eye, and hair colors?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But you do see elves mating with dwarves, gnomes with humans, halflings with dragonborn, and tieflings with genasi. Another reason species is a poor choice of words for them.

Do you though? I don’t recall such in published settings, not that I really pay attention to them so I might be mistaken.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Slippery slopes are only bad if the bottom of the slope isn’t a place you want to end up. To be honest, what you describe with a sort of build-your-own-set-of-inborn-features system would be pretty cool in my opinion.

I don’t want that for D&D same reason I don’t want it to go classless. Being strongly splat based is part of D&D’s core identity.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think in most settings and in D&D in gneral the race options are meant to be simplifications. Presumably there are more half races than half elf and half irc but those are just what the game makes available to players

 

[Vaalingrade]

Do you though? I don’t recall such in published settings, not that I really pay attention to them so I might be mistaken.

So were a whole lot of other things that have gone away or diminished.

The game improves, however slowly, in spite of the inertia of tradition.

 

[glass]

But you do see elves mating with dwarves, gnomes with humans, halflings with dragonborn, and tieflings with genasi.

[citation needed]

 

[Cadence]

Do you though? I don’t recall such in published settings, not that I really pay attention to them so I might be mistaken.

I think in most settings and in D&D in gneral the race options are meant to be simplifications. Presumably there are more half races than half elf and half irc but those are just what the game makes available to players

[citation needed]

The ONE playtest rules for this allow the mixing.

I've never seen other mixes in any games or materials (except half-ogres, maybe mention in some sorcerer backgrounds, and some race descriptions that hinted at ancient mixing - dwarves are cousins to gnomes).

In fiction, one of Glen Cook's series of books is stocked full with them.

 

[Yaarel]

Wait, species is also problematic now?

For D&D, the term species works fine, as long as it is distinct from culture.

Note, the playtest Elf is a single species, where Drow, High, and Wood differ mechanically via certain innate spells.

There is no problem having diverse elven parentage.

Even so, ancestry looks like a useful term because it emphasizes multiple ancestors each transmitting a different lineage. Not only might the Elf have High and Drow parents, but perhaps has a draconic bloodline, meaning one of the ancestors is a Dragon, plus maybe one of the grand parents is a Human. The term ancestry invites this fluidity of possible origins for a D&D character.

Note, ancestry must also be distinct from culture. A character of Dwarf ancestry and a character of Human ancestry might grow up in the same town and be members of the same culture.

Meanwhile ancestry can refer to a species, or to a particular genetic trait within the species.