D&D 5E Wow! No more subraces. The Players Handbook races reformat to the new race format going forward.

[Chaosmancer]

But not as any sort of official category. WotC grouped them up in 3e, but there was never any need to do so. A half-demon isn't the same race as a half-celestial, which isn't the same race as a half-elemental. Neither are their descendants.

I agree there was never any need to restate the category, but just because it wasn't stated doesn't mean it doesn't exist. After all, the same races are in it for the same reasons, and none of that has changed.

Additionally, is a half-human the same race as a half-human who is the same race as a half-human? You seem to want to focus on one half, while completely ignoring that it takes two halves to make a whole.

So do gnomes, elves, dwarves, firbolg, tritons, and probably some others.

Different names and different resistances. Other races also get those things. They don't have a unified resistance in common like a race would.

The one and only racial ability they have in common is darkvision.

Gnomes, Elves and Firbolgs get spellcasting, but do not get elemental resistances. (exceptions for the elves on the New Astral Elves [tied to the Astral plane] and the Shadar-Kai [Tied with the Shadowfell])
Dwarves get elemental resistance, but not spellcasting (except Duergar who have a history of being affected by the lower planes)

Tritons get spellcasting and elemental resistance... and their entire niche is protecting gateways to the Elemental plane of Water, giving them a connection to one of the planes.

So, it seems like my evidence is holding fairly strong. Both traits together seem to be indicative of a relation to a plane, like being touched by that plane.

I have no idea as I don't have the new book, but even if that's the case, it's irrelevant here. All the "planetouched" races were made prior to these new rules.

So evidence of a thing being done isn't evidence that it might have been considered before.

They are not one race. They are like giants, dragons and other categories which have multiple races within them. Think of them like Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals. Related, but different races.

And yet they are different races.

So, what is a race then?

Because you want to claim that elves are a single race, with subraces that include vastly different abilities, appearance, and even one of them has gills and lives underwater. Yet in the same breath you want to say that Giants are multiple different races that have no subraces. So why is it I can have a Wood Elf, a Sea Elf and a Shadar-Kai and them all be "elves" but having a Frost Giant, Cloud Giant and Storm Giant is somehow all being different races?

What makes the difference here? What is a race? Until you define this I'm left just looking at these examples and saying that you are wrong and don't know what you are talking about, because you have two seemingly identical situations and you are treating them differently with claims of special pleading.

And still your major hurdle is that Genasi, Aasimar and Tieflings are all separate races in 5e. Do you have any hard fact that show otherwise?

Why do you claim they are separate races? I understand and accept that they have different mechanics, but you have never once demonstrated how that makes them separate races and not just different subraces.

You continually refuse to define the terms, and thus your claims appear to be special pleading with no substance behind them.

Descendants. It says descendants, not children. And we have cambions as the children of demons and mortals. You know, half-demon cambions.

You think "fiendish blood" proves that they are children? Nope. Doesn't prove that at all.

Sure, I guess it could come from a blood transfusion, but generally children carry the blood of their parents.

Additionally, your children are ALSO your descendants. That's how words work. The cambions are more powerful tielflings, I won't deny that, but much how you have Changelings and Doppelgangers, they seem quite clearly to be the same basic type of being.

 

[Maxperson]

Additionally, is a half-human the same race as a half-human who is the same race as a half-human?

No. We know from half-elf, the offspring is an entirely new race that isn't the race of either parent. We also know this from half-celestial, half-dragon, half-demon, etc. from prior editions.

You seem to want to focus on one half, while completely ignoring that it takes two halves to make a whole.

Not really. In 5e they seem to be focusing on all the "planetouched" being descended from other planar beings and humans. Not sure why they keep picking human over and over as elves, gnomes, dwarves, halflings, etc. can all make half-whatevers and then have descendants.

That doesn't really matter, though. A demon is not the same race as a devil who are both not the same race as celestials, etc. The various bloodlines, despite all being linked to outer planar creatures, are going to be different races as we have seen in 5e, as well as 2e and 3e.

Gnomes, Elves and Firbolgs get spellcasting, but do not get elemental resistances. (exceptions for the elves on the New Astral Elves [tied to the Astral plane] and the Shadar-Kai [Tied with the Shadowfell])
Dwarves get elemental resistance, but not spellcasting (except Duergar who have a history of being affected by the lower planes)

Tritons get spellcasting and elemental resistance... and their entire niche is protecting gateways to the Elemental plane of Water, giving them a connection to one of the planes.

So, it seems like my evidence is holding fairly strong. Both traits together seem to be indicative of a relation to a plane, like being touched by that plane.

Let's assume you're right. They're still all different races, as the founders of those bloodlines are different races(devil, demon, demodand, etc.) and the half offspring are not the race of either parent.

So evidence of a thing being done isn't evidence that it might have been considered before.

No it's not as it hasn't even been done yet. Taking a race with subraces and re-making them in a new way, doesn't mean that they are going to in the future take multiple different races and merge them together into a unified race.

So, what is a race then?

In D&D 5e it's anything that isn't explicitly a subrace.

Because you want to claim that elves are a single race, with subraces that include vastly different abilities, appearance, and even one of them has gills and lives underwater. Yet in the same breath you want to say that Giants are multiple different races that have no subraces. So why is it I can have a Wood Elf, a Sea Elf and a Shadar-Kai and them all be "elves" but having a Frost Giant, Cloud Giant and Storm Giant is somehow all being different races?

Because that's the way D&D 5e presents them. It presents elf as a race, and wood elf, sea elf, etc. as subraces. It presents giants as a type, so the various races of giants are merely the giant type, not one unified race.

Humanoid is another type. In that type are humans, elves, halflings, orcs, etc. All of those races have similar biology, but are not one race.

If you want to know why they did it, you need to ask Crawford.

Why do you claim they are separate races? I understand and accept that they have different mechanics, but you have never once demonstrated how that makes them separate races and not just different subraces.

Because they are not explicitly subraces. All of them are presented as separate races. Genasi, aasimar and tiefling even have their own subraces. Tiefling is the race. It has base race traits. It has 9 subraces. One for each planar ruler of Hell. Genasi is a race. Air genasi is a subrace of genasi. Aasimar is a race. Fallen Aasimar is a subrace.

This is basic stuff man. In 5e they are not some unified race called planetouched. At best you can assume that there is a type called planetouched, and in that type are different races called genasi, aasimar and tieflings.

Sure, I guess it could come from a blood transfusion, but generally children carry the blood of their parents.

You need to look up what descendant means. It doesn't mean a child. It means that you are descended from an ancestor. Not parent. Ancestor. The Cambridge dictionary lists ancestor as meaning someone who you are related to who lived a long time ago.

Additionally, your children are ALSO your descendants.

No they are not. That's why we have the world "children" and use it, not descendants.

That's how words work.

Yes words work a certain way. Just not the way you are trying to use this word.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

No they are not. That's why we have the world "children" and use it, not descendants.

Now you are making up stuff...

Of course your children are a sub group of your descendants.

 

[Maxperson]

Now you are making up stuff...

Of course your children are a sub group of your descendants.

Look up the definitions man.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Look up the definitions man.

You should better do.


Did it for you..

From cambridge online:

a person who is related to you and who lives after you, such as your child or grandchild:

a person related to someone from an earlier generation (= all the people of about the same age within a particular family):

descendant

1. a person who is related to you and who lives after you, such as your child…

dictionary.cambridge.org

 

[Maxperson]

You should better do.

I already know what they mean. You should probably go research it, because you don't call your kids descendants or ancestors. You call them kids or children. This game uses common usage of words, so children are not descendants or ancestors in it, nor are they in real life, but hey.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I already know what they mean. You should probably go research it, because you don't call your kids descendants or ancestors. You call them kids or children. This game uses common usage of words, so children are not descendants or ancestors in it, nor are they in real life, but hey.

Did it.
Was easy to find.

Look at my earlier post.

 

[Maxperson]

Did it.
Was easy to find.

Look at my earlier post.

Which one, the one about subgroups that aren't commonly used in that fashion? The one that ignores the actual definitions of the words? That post?

Or all of them that ignore that Tieflings and Aasimar are not the children of Celestials and Demons in D&D?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You should better do.


Did it for you..

From cambridge online:

a person who is related to you and who lives after you, such as your child or grandchild:

a person related to someone from an earlier generation (= all the people of about the same age within a particular family):

descendant

1. a person who is related to you and who lives after you, such as your child…

dictionary.cambridge.org

@Maxperson this one...

 

[Maxperson]

@Maxperson this one...

Ahh, you edited it. So there are competing definitions, as others say grandparent or more distant.

In any case, none of those apply to Tieflings or Aasimar for a number of reasons.

"Their appearance and their nature are not their fault but the result of an ancient sin, for which they and their children and their children's children will always be held accountable."

"Aasimar bear within their souls the light of the heavens. They are descended from humans with a touch of the power of Mount Celestia, the divine realm of many lawful good deities." - A touch of power is far less than a half-celestial will have. That very strongly implies a great deal of time and generations between the initial mating of celestial and human.

Half-Celestials and Half-fiends have much more power than Aasimar and Tieflings do.

Gensasi, probably because genies are weaker than demons, devils and celestials, are the children of mortal and genie in 5e. That race makes that distinction, unlike the prior two.