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

[Maxperson]

This particular subject is ridiculous.


Few people say, "Hey, descendants, who wants ice cream?" (Although if I had kids, I might; I'm that kind of person.) Everybody who uses descendant understands that it means their children and grandchildren. In legal terms, it means children, grandchildren, and others in your direct bloodline

Tieflings are not the children of fiends; those would be cambions. Many are, however, descended from fiends, which means they could be the grandchild of one, or the child of a cambion.

But! There is absolutely no reason why you can't be a tiefling who is the direct descendant of a fiend and a mortal! Call yourself a cambion if you like, but as long as you only have tiefling abilities, you're fine. Just don't include a ridiculous tragic backstory or expect bennies because Grazzt's your daddy.

Cambions are specifically demon and other(often human). I don't remember if the offspring of a devil and other had a specific name or not. I think it did, but can't remember it.

 

[Faolyn]

Cambions are specifically demon and other(often human). I don't remember if the offspring of a devil and other had a specific name or not. I think it did, but can't remember it.

Cambion, in 5e. Also alu-demon, but not in 5e.

 

[Maxperson]

Cambion, in 5e. Also alu-demon, but not in 5e.

Interesting. I didn't realize 5e made devilish offspring Cambions. Thanks. And thanks for alu-demon. That was it and I was driving myself crazy with it on the tip of memory.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

We know no such thing. Firstly, you haven't defined race, secondly you haven't shown how something like a half elf is a new race, yet a sea elf is a subrace. They are listed seperately, I can give you that much, but that doesn't mean they are entirely new and unrelated races.

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.

None of this disputes my claim. In fact, by saying that fiends and celestials aren't related (which again ignores that some devils at least are fallen angels, making them the say "race") and making that your full point, you reinforce that you are simply ignoring the other half of the people under discussion.

As for why they keep picking human, we literally discussed this earlier in this thread. It would be because of the difficulty of balancing abilities of elves and dwarves in addition to the abilities of tieflings and aasimar.

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.

And your second assumption in this (that half- offpsring are not the races of either parent) is not proven, Because again, you have no defined race in anyway. Why does having a human father make you a completely new and unseen thing, but being able to breathe underwater with gills and fins... still makes you an elf?

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.

It doesn't mean they haven't either. My enitre point is that it seems immently possible, since it appears to have been done.

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

Okay, a definition. So, explain to me why zombies are a race then, since they are not explicitly a subrace, by your definition, they are a new race.

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.

So, it is completely arbitrary, follows no rules, and is therefore quite meaningless.

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.

I'll remind you of the dragonborn again. Having subraces within subraces doesn't disqualify anything. Additionally, Ghosts and zombies are not subraces, so therefore by your argumentation they are new races of beings. A lycanthrope isn't a subrace, therefore they are also a new race. This is your present argument, and I find it utterly lacking.

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.

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

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

As posted by UngeheuerLich immediately under this.. you are wrong. Descendants include your children. Ancestors include your parents.

 

[Maxperson]

We know no such thing. Firstly, you haven't defined race, secondly you haven't shown how something like a half elf is a new race, yet a sea elf is a subrace. They are listed seperately, I can give you that much, but that doesn't mean they are entirely new and unrelated races.

I did. It's anything in 5e that is not explicitly a subrace. If you want a different definition, take it up with WotC.

As for why they keep picking human, we literally discussed this earlier in this thread. It would be because of the difficulty of balancing abilities of elves and dwarves in addition to the abilities of tieflings and aasimar.

There is no difficulty. Like none at all. Tielflings, aasimar and genasi retain nothing human beyond looks. Their stats and racial abilities come entirely from the side of their distant ancestors in the case of tieflings and aasimar, and genie parent in the case of Genasi.

And your second assumption in this (that half- offpsring are not the races of either parent) is not proven, Because again, you have no defined race in anyway. Why does having a human father make you a completely new and unseen thing, but being able to breathe underwater with gills and fins... still makes you an elf?

Cambions are the offspring of demon/devil and other, not tieflings. This is established in Mordenkainen's.

It doesn't mean they haven't either. My enitre point is that it seems immently possible, since it appears to have been done.

It does mean that they haven't. I see no new book with this change, and until one is released, they haven't made any such change in the rules.

So, explain to me why zombies are a race then, since they are not explicitly a subrace, by your definition, they are a new race.

They are a monster of the type undead.

So, it is completely arbitrary, follows no rules, and is therefore quite meaningless.

Can you quote me Crawford's response to you that told you that it was arbitrary and followed no rules?

As posted by UngeheuerLich immediately under this.. you are wrong. Descendants include your children. Ancestors include your parents.

While he was technically correct, and we all know that's the best kind of correct , that's not how it's used in modern language, which is why the official source Oxford Languages doesn't back him up. Nobody says, my descendant got an A on his 1st grade math test today. They say child, kid, son, daughter or other word that is actually in use and refers to children. So while technically correct, the reality is that it's wrong with regard to actual usage.

 

[Chaosmancer]

There is no difficulty. Like none at all. Tielflings, aasimar and genasi retain nothing human beyond looks. Their stats and racial abilities come entirely from the side of their distant ancestors in the case of tieflings and aasimar, and genie parent in the case of Genasi.

In which case how would they be any different than they are now? In fact, this could be the truth of the situation, but we've just assumed they are human because it hasn't been stated otherwise.

Personally, I find the idea of them just visually looking like other races to be... poor. It is a cheap way out and I'd rather not have that and think of ways to achieve the more complicated way of doing thins.

Cambions are the offspring of demon/devil and other, not tieflings. This is established in Mordenkainen's.

Sorry, that's not what Mordenkainen's says. It says that Infernal Cambions are the children of the Archdevils while the Abyssal Cambions are the Children of Demon Lords. This in no way prevents a tiefling being born of a human and an imp, or a human and a Shadow Demon. It only, really, says what I said before. Cambions are just more powerful tieflings, and being the children of Archfiends would make sense for that.

It does mean that they haven't. I see no new book with this change, and until one is released, they haven't made any such change in the rules.

I don't remember a rule ever existing saying that you couldn't have a subrace within a subrace. SO, no rule needs to have changed, and we have an example of them doing it with... quite literally zero fanfare. No one has commented on this being a rule change, it is simply understood.

They are a monster of the type undead.

So? Being a monster type doesn't make you not a race. And you said a race is, to quote exactly, "anything in 5e that is not explicitly a subrace". Zombies and Lycanthropes are not explicitly subraces, so by your definition, they are races.

Can you quote me Crawford's response to you that told you that it was arbitrary and followed no rules?

Why would I bother Crawford with this? He has better things to do than help me argue with someone who can't even defend their own position.

While he was technically correct, and we all know that's the best kind of correct , that's not how it's used in modern language, which is why the official source Oxford Languages doesn't back him up. Nobody says, my descendant got an A on his 1st grade math test today. They say child, kid, son, daughter or other word that is actually in use and refers to children. So while technically correct, the reality is that it's wrong with regard to actual usage.

And people don't say that they've stubbed their hallux, or that they caught their digits in the door. But just because they don't say those things doesn't mean they are not accurate.

Descendants covers every child, grandchild, greatgrandchild, great-greatgrandchild, ect. People don't use it not because they would be wrong to do so, but because it is less accurate. You would not be able to tell if they are speaking about their child, or about their 13th generational great-grandchild. However, when talking about the plane-touched, being vague is actually prefered, because it allows people to decide for themselves how far back the relationship (if there was one) occurred.

 

[Maxperson]

Snip

I'm done with the Red Herring crap. Show me your hard evidence that the races listed aren't races and don't all have their own subraces, or concede.

All of your deflections are getting old.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'm done with the Red Herring crap. Show me your hard evidence that the races listed aren't races and don't all have their own subraces, or concede.

All of your deflections are getting old.

By "the races listed" I assume you mean the planetouched. I have never denied that they have subraces. I have simply never believed that having a subrace prevents them from being a related race. You are the one who needs evidence to prove that this somehow invalidates them, especially in the face of the new dragonborn coming in a week or so.

Additionally, if I take your definition of race "anything not explicitly a subrace" then even if I accept they are "races" that doesn't mean they are actually separate. Take the hags for instance. They are not explicitly subraces of each other (that is never explicitly stated) but they are also very clearly a related group that shares too many highly specific biological functions (such as giving birth by consuming a baby of another race) to say that they are completely separate races with no relation to each other.

And I don't accept your definition, because as shown... it is just a bad definition.

So, I'm not deflecting. you just seem unable to actually address or counter my points. Which generally is the point when most people concede.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Snip

A lost cause probably.
His sources for definitions don't hold up any (scientific) standard. So argumenting on that base does not make sense.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:

Good grief. An argument over the definitions of "descendant" and "ancestor"?

Bad comedy is right. Thread closed.