Strange. I use a website when I don't have easy access to books that's normally pretty good for using the right wording, apparently not so in this case.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It's clear what it means, where as lineage, archetype etc are more vague. Lineage could refer to more your backstory etc, like a noble house you're descended from. Archetype I think more like, character archetypes rather than anything species related.
Sure, species may feel like an odd word to use in character, but it's hardly the only term like that in the game.
I agree. No word is going to be perfect, and finding a term for this that is flawless is near impossible. But all in all, species makes sense and the other options are either taken by other games (e.g Pathfinder with Ancestry), aren't specific enough (e.g. lineage or kind), or overlap with preexisting game terms and would thusly cause unnecessary confusion for players (e.g archetype).
The reality is, if there were an obviously better word, it would likely have already been found, so more accurate words, if they exist (we don't generally create words that don't apply to any real-world situation, so they might not) would likely be technical vocabulary that will certainly not sound like fantasy.
The reality is, if there were an obviously better word, it would likely have already been found, so more accurate words, if they exist (we don't generally create words that don't apply to any real-world situation, so they might not) would likely be technical vocabulary that will certainly not sound like fantasy.
Exactly. No word is going to be flawless. Whether or not its problem is "too sciency" or something else, there will always be at least one small problem with every single term that you could possibly think up. And personally, I think species is as close to perfect as you can get with these kinds of things.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Re: "ancestry is taken by Pathfinder 2" -- didn't Pathfinder 1 use race? You know, because D&D was using race at the time? I don't think Pathfinder or its fans would have a leg to stand on, trying to claim D&D was ripping them off if D&D used ancestry. That's hogwash.
I don't think they SHOULD use ancestry, I think species is fine and ancestry is... sketchy, but Pathfinder using it first is hardly a reason not to use it.
In fact I think it would be great to see acknowledgement in the Player's Handbook about how Pathfinder got there first. Why not? Humility is a virtue. And acting like you're afraid to even mention your competitor for fear that people will abandon your product, well, it looks bad! But I digress. The designers acknowledge other designers' influence in other places, particularly with regard to (heroic) inspiration and failing forward. I don't think they've written these into the text though. But they could!
I think the next edition of D&D would do well to include author's notes -- you see this in homebrew content sometimes, where there will be a small blurb explaining, "we designed this to do X, and it's possible that it will end up doing Y in some cases, so consider not using it in those cases." Or, "this is here to keep the bonus consistent with this other bonus," or "we expect PCs will have a magic weapon by Z level. If they don't, you might want to do this instead." If such notes exist, they can say something like, "we used species here, even though it's not perfect, because we felt it was best." Or whatever, you know. And they could even say, "PF2 uses ancestry, which we like, but we didn't want to copy them." Really, the possibilities are huge, and it would go a long way towards both addressing the constant deluge of "what did you mean" questions they get, as well as leaving more explicit space for players and DMs to modify their games' rules.
I agree. No word is going to be perfect, and finding a term for this that is flawless is near impossible. But all in all, species makes sense and the other options are either taken by other games (e.g Pathfinder with Ancestry), aren't specific enough (e.g. lineage or kind), or overlap with preexisting game terms and would thusly cause unnecessary confusion for players (e.g archetype).
My issue with "species", beyond the aesthetic complaint of it sounding "too sciency" as others have said, is the fact that it doesn't have a comfortable adjective form to describe those features the way "ancestral" or "racial" do. "Special" is too broad as it can apply to any ability on my sheet rather than just the ones from the creature I chose.
Ancestry has ancestral, while lineage at least has lineal and kin and kindred have... well, kindred... and akin. Lineage is still at the top of my list personally.
I think the next edition of D&D would do well to include author's notes -- you see this in homebrew content sometimes, where there will be a small blurb explaining, "we designed this to do X, and it's possible that it will end up doing Y in some cases, so consider not using it in those cases." Or, "this is here to keep the bonus consistent with this other bonus," or "we expect PCs will have a magic weapon by Z level. If they don't, you might want to do this instead." If such notes exist, they can say something like, "we used species here, even though it's not perfect, because we felt it was best." Or whatever, you know. And they could even say, "PF2 uses ancestry, which we like, but we didn't want to copy them." Really, the possibilities are huge, and it would go a long way towards both addressing the constant deluge of "what did you mean" questions they get, as well as leaving more explicit space for players and DMs to modify their games' rules.
This would be ideal. I love it when devs (whether TTRPG or video game) provide insight into the design, like how most Valve games have a developer commentary mode. It would be nice too see, as WotC has been pretty transparent on the design process for 1DD so far. Though I find it unlikely to happen, as WotC probably wants to look as professional as possible.
Hell, even if they just released a standalone "design note" book, that would be great.
You know, because D&D was using race at the time? I don't think Pathfinder or its fans would have a leg to stand on, trying to claim D&D was ripping them off if D&D used ancestry.
Of course they wouldn't have a very sturdy leg to stand on in that case. But just because changing race to ancestry shouldn't cause Pathfinder fans to blame D&D for being copycats, that doesn't mean that is actually what is going to happen. Yes, Pathfinder fans wouldn't have a super strong case to make for this, but every single time ancestry would come up, there is always going to be someone to make that case and it is going to cause every D&D player ever a headache for the rest of their life.
That combined with the fact that ancestry is rather vague is enough to eliminate it for me. Again, just because D&D probably wouldn't be copying Pathfinder in making this change, that doesn't mean that we wouldn't have a large crowd of people annoying everyone whenever the term "ancestry" is used. But do remember, it might be possible that Wizards of the Coast would change species to ancestry if enough fans wanted them to (note the word might). So use the surveys if you really want to inspire change.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
You know, because D&D was using race at the time? I don't think Pathfinder or its fans would have a leg to stand on, trying to claim D&D was ripping them off if D&D used ancestry.
Of course they wouldn't have a very sturdy leg to stand on in that case. But just because changing race to ancestry shouldn't cause Pathfinder fans to blame D&D for being copycats, that doesn't mean that is actually what is going to happen. Yes, Pathfinder fans wouldn't have a super strong case to make for this, but every single time ancestry would come up, there is always going to be someone to make that case and it is going to cause every D&D player ever a headache for the rest of their life.
It is also worth noting that a larger copying a smaller, less famous competitor inevitably produces articles like “S&D follows in Pathfinder’s Path” (or worse - let’s be honest, nerd journalism is heavy on the nerd and light on the journalism). That (a) is free advertising for a competitor, (b) would be used in the decades old narrative of “D&D’s writers are out of ideas”, and (c) would generally look bad to investors. All of that means Ancestry is effectively dead in the water.
So, while there is no legal reason Wizards could not use Ancestry, there are plenty of compelling PR reasons they would want to avoid the term. D&D lives and dies by its reputation as the first and most popular tabletop RPG - they are not, and should not, choose a term that is tantamount to saying “we are generally the forerunner in this industry, but we were the follower this time.”
Ahh...whoops. Completely blanked on Martial Archetype, Ranger Archetype, and Roguish Archetype being the.. blandish terminology for Subclass choice for those Classes, probably because I've never played a 5E rogue and only once played a 5E fighter, and only briefly dabbled with a ranger before switching it over to said fighter who I later swapped over to a bard. Pure opinion on my part here.. but meh! Those are not nearly as evocative as things like Bardic College, Divine Domain, Druidic Circle, Primal Path etc. Probably another reason I blanked on them. Be happy to see those go away and have Archetype freed up for 'better' usage and to have these three classes get something unique and more flavorful as terms for their Subclass selection designation.
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
If the produced offspring is fertile, then the animals are of the same species, and if the produced offspring is sterile, then they are of different species. Because of this, both horses and donkeys are considered separate species. A species is generally defined as a group of organisms which are capable of interbreeding and creating viable offspring.
So Half Elves and Half Orcs are sterile? The only race that had this correct was Mul from Athas.
So Half Elves and Half Orcs are sterile? The only race that had this correct was Mul from Athas.
Only if you want them to be. Magic kinda changes the picture on how these things work. Also, there are plenty of other definitions of species outside of the very narrow scientific one you are choosing to use. For example, one of the definitions of species in Oxford Languages is "a kind or sort". If you look at it from the perspective of how the word workd in modern day interactions, the "group of organisms that are capable of interbreeding" definition is almost never used outside of an extremely scientific context.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
If the produced offspring is fertile, then the animals are of the same species, and if the produced offspring is sterile, then they are of different species. Because of this, both horses and donkeys are considered separate species. A species is generally defined as a group of organisms which are capable of interbreeding and creating viable offspring.
As has been stated multiple times, that is not the only definition of species. It's not even the only definition of species used in biology.
If the produced offspring is fertile, then the animals are of the same species, and if the produced offspring is sterile, then they are of different species. Because of this, both horses and donkeys are considered separate species. A species is generally defined as a group of organisms which are capable of interbreeding and creating viable offspring.
As has been stated multiple times, that is not the only definition of species. It's not even the only definition of species used in biology.
It's not even an accurate definition. Humans have neanderthal DNA because our ancestors were interfertile with neanderthals. Ligers are fertile and are the result of lions and tigers interbreeding. Ring species also exist, which is really informative on how biology actually works, if anyone ponders what's actually happening.
It's good as a rule of thumb, but it's really not any good as an actual definition.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Strange. I use a website when I don't have easy access to books that's normally pretty good for using the right wording, apparently not so in this case.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Species works best IMO.
It's clear what it means, where as lineage, archetype etc are more vague. Lineage could refer to more your backstory etc, like a noble house you're descended from. Archetype I think more like, character archetypes rather than anything species related.
Sure, species may feel like an odd word to use in character, but it's hardly the only term like that in the game.
I agree. No word is going to be perfect, and finding a term for this that is flawless is near impossible. But all in all, species makes sense and the other options are either taken by other games (e.g Pathfinder with Ancestry), aren't specific enough (e.g. lineage or kind), or overlap with preexisting game terms and would thusly cause unnecessary confusion for players (e.g archetype).
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.The reality is, if there were an obviously better word, it would likely have already been found, so more accurate words, if they exist (we don't generally create words that don't apply to any real-world situation, so they might not) would likely be technical vocabulary that will certainly not sound like fantasy.
Exactly. No word is going to be flawless. Whether or not its problem is "too sciency" or something else, there will always be at least one small problem with every single term that you could possibly think up. And personally, I think species is as close to perfect as you can get with these kinds of things.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Re: "ancestry is taken by Pathfinder 2" -- didn't Pathfinder 1 use race? You know, because D&D was using race at the time? I don't think Pathfinder or its fans would have a leg to stand on, trying to claim D&D was ripping them off if D&D used ancestry. That's hogwash.
I don't think they SHOULD use ancestry, I think species is fine and ancestry is... sketchy, but Pathfinder using it first is hardly a reason not to use it.
In fact I think it would be great to see acknowledgement in the Player's Handbook about how Pathfinder got there first. Why not? Humility is a virtue. And acting like you're afraid to even mention your competitor for fear that people will abandon your product, well, it looks bad! But I digress. The designers acknowledge other designers' influence in other places, particularly with regard to (heroic) inspiration and failing forward. I don't think they've written these into the text though. But they could!
I think the next edition of D&D would do well to include author's notes -- you see this in homebrew content sometimes, where there will be a small blurb explaining, "we designed this to do X, and it's possible that it will end up doing Y in some cases, so consider not using it in those cases." Or, "this is here to keep the bonus consistent with this other bonus," or "we expect PCs will have a magic weapon by Z level. If they don't, you might want to do this instead." If such notes exist, they can say something like, "we used species here, even though it's not perfect, because we felt it was best." Or whatever, you know. And they could even say, "PF2 uses ancestry, which we like, but we didn't want to copy them." Really, the possibilities are huge, and it would go a long way towards both addressing the constant deluge of "what did you mean" questions they get, as well as leaving more explicit space for players and DMs to modify their games' rules.
My issue with "species", beyond the aesthetic complaint of it sounding "too sciency" as others have said, is the fact that it doesn't have a comfortable adjective form to describe those features the way "ancestral" or "racial" do. "Special" is too broad as it can apply to any ability on my sheet rather than just the ones from the creature I chose.
Ancestry has ancestral, while lineage at least has lineal and kin and kindred have... well, kindred... and akin. Lineage is still at the top of my list personally.
,
This would be ideal. I love it when devs (whether TTRPG or video game) provide insight into the design, like how most Valve games have a developer commentary mode. It would be nice too see, as WotC has been pretty transparent on the design process for 1DD so far. Though I find it unlikely to happen, as WotC probably wants to look as professional as possible.
Hell, even if they just released a standalone "design note" book, that would be great.
[REDACTED]
Of course they wouldn't have a very sturdy leg to stand on in that case. But just because changing race to ancestry shouldn't cause Pathfinder fans to blame D&D for being copycats, that doesn't mean that is actually what is going to happen. Yes, Pathfinder fans wouldn't have a super strong case to make for this, but every single time ancestry would come up, there is always going to be someone to make that case and it is going to cause every D&D player ever a headache for the rest of their life.
That combined with the fact that ancestry is rather vague is enough to eliminate it for me. Again, just because D&D probably wouldn't be copying Pathfinder in making this change, that doesn't mean that we wouldn't have a large crowd of people annoying everyone whenever the term "ancestry" is used. But do remember, it might be possible that Wizards of the Coast would change species to ancestry if enough fans wanted them to (note the word might). So use the surveys if you really want to inspire change.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.It is also worth noting that a larger copying a smaller, less famous competitor inevitably produces articles like “S&D follows in Pathfinder’s Path” (or worse - let’s be honest, nerd journalism is heavy on the nerd and light on the journalism). That (a) is free advertising for a competitor, (b) would be used in the decades old narrative of “D&D’s writers are out of ideas”, and (c) would generally look bad to investors. All of that means Ancestry is effectively dead in the water.
So, while there is no legal reason Wizards could not use Ancestry, there are plenty of compelling PR reasons they would want to avoid the term. D&D lives and dies by its reputation as the first and most popular tabletop RPG - they are not, and should not, choose a term that is tantamount to saying “we are generally the forerunner in this industry, but we were the follower this time.”
Ahh...whoops. Completely blanked on Martial Archetype, Ranger Archetype, and Roguish Archetype being the.. blandish terminology for Subclass choice for those Classes, probably because I've never played a 5E rogue and only once played a 5E fighter, and only briefly dabbled with a ranger before switching it over to said fighter who I later swapped over to a bard. Pure opinion on my part here.. but meh! Those are not nearly as evocative as things like Bardic College, Divine Domain, Druidic Circle, Primal Path etc. Probably another reason I blanked on them. Be happy to see those go away and have Archetype freed up for 'better' usage and to have these three classes get something unique and more flavorful as terms for their Subclass selection designation.
ehhh archtype for race...just doesnt fit as well as species does, or kin, or folk
Cross Species reproduction doesn't exist. Good bye Half Elves and Half Orcs
Read this post to see why this is incorrect.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Sigh
Science says your statement is wrong
Magic says your statement is irrelevant
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Mules.
[REDACTED]
If the produced offspring is fertile, then the animals are of the same species, and if the produced offspring is sterile, then they are of different species. Because of this, both horses and donkeys are considered separate species. A species is generally defined as a group of organisms which are capable of interbreeding and creating viable offspring.
So Half Elves and Half Orcs are sterile? The only race that had this correct was Mul from Athas.
Only if you want them to be. Magic kinda changes the picture on how these things work. Also, there are plenty of other definitions of species outside of the very narrow scientific one you are choosing to use. For example, one of the definitions of species in Oxford Languages is "a kind or sort". If you look at it from the perspective of how the word workd in modern day interactions, the "group of organisms that are capable of interbreeding" definition is almost never used outside of an extremely scientific context.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.As has been stated multiple times, that is not the only definition of species. It's not even the only definition of species used in biology.
It's not even an accurate definition. Humans have neanderthal DNA because our ancestors were interfertile with neanderthals. Ligers are fertile and are the result of lions and tigers interbreeding. Ring species also exist, which is really informative on how biology actually works, if anyone ponders what's actually happening.
It's good as a rule of thumb, but it's really not any good as an actual definition.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.