“Creature” presently has a very exacting, clear definition - it refers to certain entities players can interact with and is used when defining the targeting of spellcasting and other abilities. Rather than taint that definition by using the same word twice, it makes vastly more sense to create a new term of art which does not have any existing parallel.
I guess the operative question is this:
Do the current game rules treat the term "race" as a 'term of art?'
I will admit some uncertainty, but I do not think they do. The only context in which the word 'race' is relevant is during character creation, and only in a 'plain meaning' sense. During play, it is mechanically relevant that a PC is a specific race (the name of which is a term of art), is a particular 'creature type,' and is a 'creature,' but it is not relevant that they are a 'race.'
So while I understand your point, I don't agree. Using the set label of 'creature' to describe the subset of playable creatures in the context of character creation doesn't introduce complexity or confusion, because the subset is already explicitly defined by the term-of-art names of each playable creature. All aspects of the term of art 'creature' apply to all 'races,' and anything about being a 'race' that does not apply to all 'creatures' is a function of a more specific term of art that is already subordinate to 'creature' in its definition.
*deep breath*
Again, I actually hate the word in this context, but you came at me with a game design challenge, so here we are.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
J Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
Adding multiple definitions takes that word from something clear and exact and introduces ambiguity into the rule system. No longer can you look at a word and say “X means Y”, you now have to look at the context and say, “X means Y in this context, but it means Z in a different context.” That is where you start to run into ambiguity problems, particularly in a game with as much complexity as D&D.
See, for instance, melee weapon attacks vs attacks with a melee weapon
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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)
I can't believe how bitter and cynical a few people on my friend's discord server are being about this change. They're just complaining about how "this won't satisfy the haters" and "they'll just find something new to rant about" and "race is a perfectly fine word, and this just legitimizes the haters" or "non-gamers should quit interfering with a game that they don't play" and all I can think is: sheesh can you just give it a rest? This wasn't even the main thing haters were demanding that WotC do, which was to make all races mechanically identical. This is a third option which takes the wind out of the haters' sails and makes them look childish and not-to-be-taken-seriously. Pick your freaking battles.
“Creature” presently has a very exacting, clear definition - it refers to certain entities players can interact with and is used when defining the targeting of spellcasting and other abilities. Rather than taint that definition by using the same word twice, it makes vastly more sense to create a new term of art which does not have any existing parallel.
I guess the operative question is this:
Do the current game rules treat the term "race" as a 'term of art?'
I will admit some uncertainty, but I do not think they do. The only context in which the word 'race' is relevant is during character creation, and only in a 'plain meaning' sense. During play, it is mechanically relevant that a PC is a specific race (the name of which is a term of art), is a particular 'creature type,' and is a 'creature,' but it is not relevant that they are a 'race.'
So while I understand your point, I don't agree. Using the set label of 'creature' to describe the subset of playable creatures in the context of character creation doesn't introduce complexity or confusion, because the subset is already explicitly defined by the term-of-art names of each playable creature. All aspects of the term of art 'creature' apply to all 'races,' and anything about being a 'race' that does not apply to all 'creatures' is a function of a more specific term of art that is already subordinate to 'creature' in its definition.
*deep breath*
Again, I actually hate the word in this context, but you came at me with a game design challenge, so here we are.
Race is a specific term of art in the present game - it has a defined meaning of “the choice you make about what type of being you are, chosen at the start of the game within character creation.” It is a term clearly defined and exclusively used for that purpose, which is exactly when something constitutes a “term of art” within a rule system.
Consider, Wizards writes something like “at the beginning of the game, you choose your Race.” Because Race is a term of art explicitly defined in the rules, that statement can only mean one thing - “at the beginning of the game, you choose from a set of specific racial options that are laid out and define certain innate traits, certain prerequisites, and otherwise have very specific gameplay criteria.” The term is limited definitionally to the playable race options, and can only refer to those.
”At the beginning of the game, you choose your creature type” is far, far more broad, covering numerous mechanics that do not apply to that stage of character creation. Would it be easy to figure out from context what is meant? Yes - but anyone with basic competence in writing rules knows your rule should be clear on its face, not clear only contextually.
It sort of would be like asking someone to “choose a quadrilateral” when you could be more specific and say “choose a square.” The second option is simply better rule writing if you only want a person to be able to choose a square.
I can't believe this is happening again. They simply went from one problematic term to another. On the "Asians Represent" YouTube channel they're having an in-depth discussion of why "species" is problematic on various levels, and in some cases worse.
As a person of color, I've had the term "species" used toward me in a derogatory way, and I find this VERY offensive. If WotC can't get a better handle on this, I don't know if I can continue to support them.
This is just continually hurtful.
This is a perfect example of why a new word or term should be created. One that has no meaning or previous definition or connotation. Then there will be no question and D&D can define it and change it how ever they want from there on.
I like to use the Term "Bloodline", or just the name of your bloodline. Like, "Oh, I'm from a Elven Bloodline, but my dad was human" to describe them being a half-elf, or "I'm a Lizardfolk, duh" said the 6 foot bipedal lizard man. This can even work for "Sub races". Reusing the above example: "Oh, i'm from a Elvan Bloodline. High Elvan to be spesific. Though I'm part Dwarf on my fathers side" "You're dad was a Dwarf?" "Nah, he was human, my Granma was a dwarf."
But yeah. Instead of being from the Elvan Species or Race, you're from a Elvan Bloodline.
I like to use the Term "Bloodline", or just the name of your bloodline. Like, "Oh, I'm from a Elven Bloodline, but my dad was human" to describe them being a half-elf, or "I'm a Lizardfolk, duh" said the 6 foot bipedal lizard man. This can even work for "Sub races". Reusing the above example: "Oh, i'm from a Elvan Bloodline. High Elvan to be spesific. Though I'm part Dwarf on my fathers side" "You're dad was a Dwarf?" "Nah, he was human, my Granma was a dwarf."
But yeah. Instead of being from the Elvan Species or Race, you're from a Elvan Bloodline.
The only issue with "bloodline" is that Warforged and Autognomes don't have a bloodline. The same applies to "lineage", "kin", and "ancestry".
The only issue with "bloodline" is that Warforged and Autognomes don't have a bloodline. The same applies to "lineage", "kin", and "ancestry".
Every term for this will have some issue. Expecting to find a word that fits flawlessly is impossible. Personally, I like bloodline, lineage, kin, and ancestry. They make sense overall.
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.
”At the beginning of the game, you choose your creature type” is far, far more broad, covering numerous mechanics that do not apply to that stage of character creation. Would it be easy to figure out from context what is meant? Yes - but anyone with basic competence in writing rules knows your rule should be clear on its face, not clear only contextually.
To be clear, though, 'creature type' and 'creature' are different terms of art, and I'm very specifically disagreeing with this point as it applies to 'creature.' The term of art 'creature' doesn't cover numerous mechanics that do not apply to that stage of character creation. When you choose a race you are accepting all aspects of being a creature according to the rules. A case could be made that it is more clear than the arbitrary use of 'race,' which never appears again in the rules.
I'm not disagreeing with your logic -- it's sound, and applies in a majority of cases. I just think you're overselling it in this particular context. All the necessary pieces are here in play; there's no loss of information. 'Race' is the unnecessary overlapping construct here, not 'creature.'
It sort of would be like asking someone to “choose a quadrilateral” when you could be more specific and say “choose a square.” The second option is simply better rule writing if you only want a person to be able to choose a square.
In order for that metaphor to be apt, every individual quadrilateral must have a definite name that is already a term of art, and upon asking someone to choose a quadrilateral, I must present them with only a set of squares to choose from.
That's already pretty simple, and if the subject picks a square, so much the better. But here's the kicker: if the subject insists on choosing a non-square quadrilateral, accepting any given quadrilateral is an empirically trivial effort, because all squares are quadrilaterals and all quadrilaterals are already defined.
If I have a player who wants to play a sahuagin for some reason, sahuagin are humanoids and humanoids are creatures. The fact that they are not a 'race' doesn't give me pause. When I translate the Monster Manual entry into character creation rules, those new rules become part of the existing 'sahuagin' term of art, not a putative 'race' term of art. 'Race' remains mechanically irrelevant.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
J Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
This ^^ .. My campaign is full of enemies that bank off the personalities of "racists" and "Bigots". Elves hate dwarves, dwarves hate elves, Orcs hate everyone... I don't think my intent in creating evil characters equates to creating "Evil" in the real world. We really got stop Lord Voldemort-ing words as if it's going to raise a racist from the dead. Having the ability does not mean you're being enabled. We all have choices, we need to stop taking away the opportunity for accountability and do the diligent and right thing.
It's being changed because the term race draws incorrect comparisons to real-world people. Orcs are not native American humans, for example - they're Orcs, and Elves are not white Europeans. Thus, a term other than "race" is needed.
How does using the term race create confusion that Orcs might be native American humans or that Elves, when listed as a "race", suddenly become lumped in with white europeans. Orcs are orcs and elves are elves. Native Americans the same, as are Europeans. Not sure how the label creates confusion that would cause me to disregard my character and principles and consider any real-world group as lesser, worse, wrong, or evil because of some imaginary group in a game.
This ^^ .. My campaign is full of enemies that bank off the personalities of "racists" and "Bigots". Elves hate dwarves, dwarves hate elves, Orcs hate everyone... I don't think my intent in creating evil characters equates to creating "Evil" in the real world. We really got stop Lord Voldemort-ing words as if it's going to raise a racist from the dead. Having the ability does not mean you're being enabled. We all have choices, we need to stop taking away the opportunity for accountability and do the diligent and right thing.
It's being changed because the term race draws incorrect comparisons to real-world people. Orcs are not native American humans, for example - they're Orcs, and Elves are not white Europeans. Thus, a term other than "race" is needed.
How does using the term race create confusion that Orcs might be native American humans or that Elves, when listed as a "race", suddenly become lumped in with white europeans. Orcs are orcs and elves are elves. Native Americans the same, as are Europeans. Not sure how the label creates confusion that would cause me to disregard my character and principles and consider any real-world group as lesser, worse, wrong, or evil because of some imaginary group in a game.
It creates confusion because race in the real world applies mainly to people of none white-skin tone such as Africans or Asians
I don't hate species, but I don't love it either. Mostly what I'm afraid of here is that Wizards can put it in the playtest, ask for feedback, and hear "it's better than race," without the nuance of "but it's still not good enough," because they didn't offer any other options.
Idk. "Sort"? "Kind"? Even "type" or, heck, "variety." What variety of person are ye? Lol. Maybe not that.
Agreed that it'll never be perfect. We're not exactly putting lipstick on a pig here (there's good in the rules and stories of race in every edition, it's just competing against the bad), but the idiom is useful nonetheless, because it's always going to be at least a little problematic no matter what we call it.
Imagine! Not having a single, easy, universal answer for one of the most enduring concerns ever faced by sentient life!
On one point this was never an issue back when we played Skyrim, World of Warcraft and many other cRPG fantasy games, but somehow when 5e became a thing there's a need to fix this?
It's important to keep in mind that just because you never noticed a problem or were aware of it, that doesn't mean it didn't exist.
On one point this was never an issue back when we played Skyrim, World of Warcraft and many other cRPG fantasy games, but somehow when 5e became a thing there's a need to fix this?
With every problem that comes up, there has been a time when it wasn't considered a problem. Just because it wasn't a) raised in the past or b) raised by someone else, that doesn't mean it's not worth addressing. Especially when it's a simple word change that has next to no negatives riding with it.
By the way, Skyrim got rid of gender differences in terms of stat bonuses, which used to be a thing in The Elder Scrolls series. It's not like Elder Scrolls et al are ignorant of this kind of thing, there are just different focuses, different approaches and different priorities.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I guess the operative question is this:
Do the current game rules treat the term "race" as a 'term of art?'
I will admit some uncertainty, but I do not think they do. The only context in which the word 'race' is relevant is during character creation, and only in a 'plain meaning' sense. During play, it is mechanically relevant that a PC is a specific race (the name of which is a term of art), is a particular 'creature type,' and is a 'creature,' but it is not relevant that they are a 'race.'
So while I understand your point, I don't agree. Using the set label of 'creature' to describe the subset of playable creatures in the context of character creation doesn't introduce complexity or confusion, because the subset is already explicitly defined by the term-of-art names of each playable creature. All aspects of the term of art 'creature' apply to all 'races,' and anything about being a 'race' that does not apply to all 'creatures' is a function of a more specific term of art that is already subordinate to 'creature' in its definition.
*deep breath*
Again, I actually hate the word in this context, but you came at me with a game design challenge, so here we are.
J
Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
See, for instance, melee weapon attacks vs attacks with a melee weapon
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)
I can't believe how bitter and cynical a few people on my friend's discord server are being about this change. They're just complaining about how "this won't satisfy the haters" and "they'll just find something new to rant about" and "race is a perfectly fine word, and this just legitimizes the haters" or "non-gamers should quit interfering with a game that they don't play" and all I can think is: sheesh can you just give it a rest? This wasn't even the main thing haters were demanding that WotC do, which was to make all races mechanically identical. This is a third option which takes the wind out of the haters' sails and makes them look childish and not-to-be-taken-seriously. Pick your freaking battles.
Race is a specific term of art in the present game - it has a defined meaning of “the choice you make about what type of being you are, chosen at the start of the game within character creation.” It is a term clearly defined and exclusively used for that purpose, which is exactly when something constitutes a “term of art” within a rule system.
Consider, Wizards writes something like “at the beginning of the game, you choose your Race.” Because Race is a term of art explicitly defined in the rules, that statement can only mean one thing - “at the beginning of the game, you choose from a set of specific racial options that are laid out and define certain innate traits, certain prerequisites, and otherwise have very specific gameplay criteria.” The term is limited definitionally to the playable race options, and can only refer to those.
”At the beginning of the game, you choose your creature type” is far, far more broad, covering numerous mechanics that do not apply to that stage of character creation. Would it be easy to figure out from context what is meant? Yes - but anyone with basic competence in writing rules knows your rule should be clear on its face, not clear only contextually.
It sort of would be like asking someone to “choose a quadrilateral” when you could be more specific and say “choose a square.” The second option is simply better rule writing if you only want a person to be able to choose a square.
This is a perfect example of why a new word or term should be created. One that has no meaning or previous definition or connotation. Then there will be no question and D&D can define it and change it how ever they want from there on.
*added no ...be no question...
Don't roll that one!
I like to use the Term "Bloodline", or just the name of your bloodline. Like, "Oh, I'm from a Elven Bloodline, but my dad was human" to describe them being a half-elf, or "I'm a Lizardfolk, duh" said the 6 foot bipedal lizard man. This can even work for "Sub races". Reusing the above example: "Oh, i'm from a Elvan Bloodline. High Elvan to be spesific. Though I'm part Dwarf on my fathers side" "You're dad was a Dwarf?" "Nah, he was human, my Granma was a dwarf."
But yeah. Instead of being from the Elvan Species or Race, you're from a Elvan Bloodline.
Being: the nature or essence of a person as in Human Being, Orc Being, Elf Being, etc.
Peoples.
Denizens.
How are those two.
"You are a beginner once, but a student for life." - Firearm Instruction Adage.
The only issue with "bloodline" is that Warforged and Autognomes don't have a bloodline. The same applies to "lineage", "kin", and "ancestry".
[REDACTED]
Every term for this will have some issue. Expecting to find a word that fits flawlessly is impossible. Personally, I like bloodline, lineage, kin, and ancestry. They make sense overall.
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.To be clear, though, 'creature type' and 'creature' are different terms of art, and I'm very specifically disagreeing with this point as it applies to 'creature.' The term of art 'creature' doesn't cover numerous mechanics that do not apply to that stage of character creation. When you choose a race you are accepting all aspects of being a creature according to the rules. A case could be made that it is more clear than the arbitrary use of 'race,' which never appears again in the rules.
I'm not disagreeing with your logic -- it's sound, and applies in a majority of cases. I just think you're overselling it in this particular context. All the necessary pieces are here in play; there's no loss of information. 'Race' is the unnecessary overlapping construct here, not 'creature.'
In order for that metaphor to be apt, every individual quadrilateral must have a definite name that is already a term of art, and upon asking someone to choose a quadrilateral, I must present them with only a set of squares to choose from.
That's already pretty simple, and if the subject picks a square, so much the better. But here's the kicker: if the subject insists on choosing a non-square quadrilateral, accepting any given quadrilateral is an empirically trivial effort, because all squares are quadrilaterals and all quadrilaterals are already defined.
If I have a player who wants to play a sahuagin for some reason, sahuagin are humanoids and humanoids are creatures. The fact that they are not a 'race' doesn't give me pause. When I translate the Monster Manual entry into character creation rules, those new rules become part of the existing 'sahuagin' term of art, not a putative 'race' term of art. 'Race' remains mechanically irrelevant.
J
Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
It doesn't matter to me what they're called, but I think "Kind" would work best, and more people would agree with it.
I'm Hecate! I've got a lotta titles, and there's no way this sig space would hold them all lol
remember that my PMs are always open to anyone who needs someone to talk to, vent to, or just shout at, and i'll always respond relatively quickly
The Younger Twin (by ten minutes)
Extended signature: Here
How does using the term race create confusion that Orcs might be native American humans or that Elves, when listed as a "race", suddenly become lumped in with white europeans. Orcs are orcs and elves are elves. Native Americans the same, as are Europeans. Not sure how the label creates confusion that would cause me to disregard my character and principles and consider any real-world group as lesser, worse, wrong, or evil because of some imaginary group in a game.
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
I one hundred percent agree (both with removing the term race and with not wanting the term race to be replaced with species) maybe people or folk
It creates confusion because race in the real world applies mainly to people of none white-skin tone such as Africans or Asians
I don't hate species, but I don't love it either. Mostly what I'm afraid of here is that Wizards can put it in the playtest, ask for feedback, and hear "it's better than race," without the nuance of "but it's still not good enough," because they didn't offer any other options.
Idk. "Sort"? "Kind"? Even "type" or, heck, "variety." What variety of person are ye? Lol. Maybe not that.
Agreed that it'll never be perfect. We're not exactly putting lipstick on a pig here (there's good in the rules and stories of race in every edition, it's just competing against the bad), but the idiom is useful nonetheless, because it's always going to be at least a little problematic no matter what we call it.
Imagine! Not having a single, easy, universal answer for one of the most enduring concerns ever faced by sentient life!
What the hell did you say that got your post redacted by a mod
#OpenDnD
It's important to keep in mind that just because you never noticed a problem or were aware of it, that doesn't mean it didn't exist.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
With every problem that comes up, there has been a time when it wasn't considered a problem. Just because it wasn't a) raised in the past or b) raised by someone else, that doesn't mean it's not worth addressing. Especially when it's a simple word change that has next to no negatives riding with it.
By the way, Skyrim got rid of gender differences in terms of stat bonuses, which used to be a thing in The Elder Scrolls series. It's not like Elder Scrolls et al are ignorant of this kind of thing, there are just different focuses, different approaches and different priorities.
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.