D&D (2024) Which races would YOU put into the 50th anniversary Players Handbook?

[fluffybunbunkittens]

As 3ft tall pixies, halflings are going to be just as unbelievable at any STR value above 6, whether that 's 12 or 20.

It's a magical world, and at least the verisimilitude-breaking stat is the weakest one (and their Small size gets in the way of grappling or heavy weapons), so it's rare to actually witness a buff halfling. If you do, just assume they ate a gauntlet of ogre strength or whatever.

 

[billd91]

It's a weird debate, to me. Because people are so certain that they are right.

Yeah, I don't like racial essentialism. I think everyone agrees that demanding it produces bad outcomes at worst, and questionable outcomes even at best.

On the other hand, there is something ... well, a little weird ... when you think that the player who selected "Fairy" as their PC's race and the person who selected "Goliath" as their PC's race both can have 20s in strength.

And I don't really have any good way to reconcile that.

For debates about things like this, racial essentialism is, at least in part, poorly applied. Criticism of essentialism makes sense when dealing with real world ethnic and racial groups since we are all, literally, human and it's at the root of a lot of racist and chauvinist theories. But applying it to physical differences between goliaths and halflings is where the little weird aspect really comes up since they are not, and never have been, conceived as being the same species or even size. There's no real world stigma to halflings and goliaths fitting different strength score distributions and players have a reasonable ability to make meaningful choices in the character races, classes, weapons, and stat distributions they pick - something people born into the real world do not have a chance to make.

If someone wants to make the argument that the game system doesn't need to be so granular that it measures that difference, that's one thing. That's a stylistic choice in what the game should model. But arguing that it shouldn't because of some ethical/sociological/social science critical framework developed to analyze real-world problems might be another story.

 

[Cadence]

It's a weird debate, to me. Because people are so certain that they are right.

Yeah, I don't like racial essentialism. I think everyone agrees that demanding it produces bad outcomes at worst, and questionable outcomes even at best.

On the other hand, there is something ... well, a little weird ... when you think that the player who selected "Fairy" as their PC's race and the person who selected "Goliath" as their PC's race both can have 20s in strength.

And I don't really have any good way to reconcile that.

The game just needs a disclaimer in the ability and humanoid sections.

"Adult humanoids are unique among the beings of the prime material plane in that their physical and athletic prowess (strength and dexterity) have no connection to their size (height, weight, or build)."

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The game just needs a disclaimer in the ability and humanoid sections.

"Adult umanoids are unique among the beings of the prime material plane in that their physical and athletic prowess (strength and dexterity) have no connection to their size (height, weight, or build)."

Well, it's not humanoids. It's player characters. You can be a construct if ya wanna. Or an ooze (HELLO, PLASMOIDS!).

Heck, I know I'm not getting D&D50 until they present my aberration option!

Oh, sorry. That'll just be another elf subtype, right? GREETINGS FELLOW HUMANOIDS! I AM AN ABOLELF!

Anyway, the main control on it is people's conceptions of the characters. For the most part, people who pick Goliaths want to play strong characters, and people that pick (say) fairies and goblins don't want to play strong characters. It's mostly self-policing.

 

[Cadence]

Well, it's not humanoids. It's player characters. You can be a construct if ya wanna. Or an ooze (HELLO, PLASMOIDS!).

Heck, I know I'm not getting D&D50 until they present my aberration option!

Oh, sorry. That'll just be another elf subtype, right? GREETINGS FELLOW HUMANOIDS! I AM AN ABOLELF!

Anyway, the main control on it is people's conceptions of the characters. For the most part, people who pick Goliaths want to play strong characters, and people that pick (say) fairies and goblins don't want to play strong characters. It's mostly self-policing.

I don't know if I'm up to dealing with this debate going off into ooze and construct land... I guess it means that D&D world citizens don't need to worry about the robots outclassing the organic people though.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I don't know if I'm up to dealing with this debate going off into ooze and construct land... I guess it means that D&D world citizens don't need to worry about the robots outclassing the organic people though.

Organic people? What are you, some kind of Whole Foods Zealot? Hangin' out in the Farmer's Market? Chillin' with Gwyneth?

I do just fine when people are mass-produced and commercial, thank you! Perfectly acceptable to enslave and/or eat play!

TRUST IN ME FELLOW HUMANOID. I AM HUMANOID LIKE YOU. I AM A FELLOW ABOLELF.

 

[Lanefan]

One thought that occurred to me is that the problem might lie with the game mechanics trying and failing to unify or universalize stats that really only apply within each species.

What this means: your Strength-20 Halfling is indeed strength-20 but only in comparison to other Halflings. Your Strength-20 Goliath is also indeed strength 20, but only in comparison to other Goliaths. Your Strength-20 Human is strength 20 only in comparison to other Humans. Each of these is at the outside extreme of what that species can do in terms of strength.

Where the game mechanics fall flat on their collective face is in trying to suggest that all those Strength 20s are the same when compared to any sort of universal standard (often, Humans), because realistically a Str-20 Halfling can't compete with a Str-20 Human who in turn is well outclassed by a Str-20 Goliath. And like it or not, the same applies to each of the other five stats.

And this is why we need species-based modifiers and-or limits, both positive and negative. The game uses stats as universal comparitors between everything and doesn't just limit itself to comparisons among a single species, meaning a universal standard is what's needed - unless the intent is to throw believability out the window (which I suppose is also possible).

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

unless the intent is to throw believability out the window (which I suppose is also possible).

Was it the Barbarian only getting slightly bruised from having a castle/meteor/planet dropped on them that suggested this might be the case?

 

[Mind of tempest]

Well, it's not humanoids. It's player characters. You can be a construct if ya wanna. Or an ooze (HELLO, PLASMOIDS!).

Heck, I know I'm not getting D&D50 until they present my aberration option!

Oh, sorry. That'll just be another elf subtype, right? GREETINGS FELLOW HUMANOIDS! I AM AN ABOLELF!

Anyway, the main control on it is people's conceptions of the characters. For the most part, people who pick Goliaths want to play strong characters, and people that pick (say) fairies and goblins don't want to play strong characters. It's mostly self-policing.

what do you want for an aberration option?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

what do you want for an aberration option?

All of them!!!!

Now, I know everyone is like, “I wanna be a Mind Flayer.”

But c’mon. Slaad is where the action is AT!