Subtype and Kind are both super vague, and the former makes zero sense in this context.
The former has actually been used in this context. In 3.5e, monsters had a type and (possibly) a subtype, and dwarves, elves, gnomes, halflings, and orcs all had matching subtype (kobolds, lizardfolk, and troglodytes shared the reptilian type, bugbears, goblins, and hobgoblins shared the goblinoid subtype; the remaining races from 3.5e didn't have associated monster entries).
I really wish there were more people who didn't care. It's not a big deal. But hecc if we don't have to fight over it every single time, apparently.
Agreed. Discussions on the topic always seem to devolve into political arguments.
I don't care about politics, I just don't want them using a scientific term incorrectly. It's confusing.
If the (not)races can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, they would most likely have to be the same species and only be different breeds/races, or at most: subspecies.
"Kind" is probably even worse because creationists have used it to refer to genus or family as it suits them...
Subtype is purely a rules term so is free to mean whatever they need with no political, scientific, or religious baggage. Its perfect.
I really wish there were more people who didn't care. It's not a big deal. But hecc if we don't have to fight over it every single time, apparently.
Agreed. Discussions on the topic always seem to devolve into political arguments.
I don't care about politics, I just don't want them using a scientific term incorrectly. It's confusing.
If the (not)races can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, they would most likely have to be the same species and only be different breeds/races, or at most: subspecies.
"Kind" is probably even worse because creationists have used it to refer to genus or family as it suits them...
Subtype is purely a rules term so is free to mean whatever they need with no political, scientific, or religious baggage. Its perfect.
Again, the "a species is a set of creatures that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring" is a super flawed definition that doesn't apply to asexual organisms, ring species, and plenty of other examples. Using species for D&D isn't scientifically incorrect. And even if it was, magic exists. Dragons can breed with humans, and they're clearly different species from a scientific perspective.
I'm fine with subtype, because I already know what a creature type is in D&D, but it will probably be confusing for newer players. Which is something that should be avoided.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Something about "subtype" just doesn't feel right to me. I think it's because of the "sub" element of the name and how sub feels less because of words like substandard and I don't want anyone to feel less; also as others said it could get confusing for new players given you have "creature type". Even if it is a more accurate scientific term I just think it's the last option they should go with for a replacement name.
I assume it's some issue with Pathfinder the reason they keep ignoring the best answer of "ancestry" to replace "race". As others have said ancestry would be perfect because then you can do the ABCs of character building - ancestry, background, and Class! I could also accept "lineage" if we can't have ancestry.
"Kind" and "species" feel honestly pretty similar to me so it's kind of a wash to me which is picked between them. "Species" is more scientific so there's that, but "kind" feels arguably less problematic and also maybe removes debates about how X and Y can't mix to create the PC you want because "they're sterile/biologically incompatible because of science" so there's that. I get in reality how some creatures might not mix, but you all we're playing fantasy where we can make fire with our minds and bring back the dead so you know scientific realities don't exactly apply; stop using it to block customization on PCs.
I love Wizards Of The Coast is changing things with removing ASIs from species based elements because since when does biology make you smarter just because you're born Y over Z and so forth and I get the desire behind the change of "race" as a term, but I don't know if "species" is the end best choice.
Species is certainly an option, but if they're going to change for years to come then I feel again the best answer is "ancestry" or "lineage". Pathfinder can't own the word "ancestry" because it's so general so they shouldn't worry over a lawsuit. If it's fear of being compared to Pathfinder - you already are/vice versa so again don't worry. :)
Potentially because you have subtype and creature type and with a similar name it could lead to confusion which it seems Wizards wants to avoid given how much they keep trying to clean up and simplify the Rules Glossary area.
I assume it's part of why they haven't tried "creature" in place of "race" - technically you are a creature of some kind but creature most know means humanoid versus fey versus demonic. Someone could ask if a subtype is the same as the creature type to which people would say "No", but it would be an easy mix up at the start and again it seems Wizards is trying to avoid confusion as much as possible on the 6e front. To be fair, subtype kind of fits with subclass and how that's a drop down menu if you will for which class you pick, but again between the options that are easily out there to replace "race" subtype just feels meh; also again "subtype" could get confused with subclass to a new player and yeah - see avoiding confusion.
It's easy for older players to not get mixed up on these arguably, but a new player coming in and having similar terms for things which are very different or different in how they're handled it could be off putting versus bringing them in with an ease of understanding the system.
Potentially because you have subtype and creature type and with a similar name it could lead to confusion which it seems Wizards wants to avoid given how much they keep trying to clean up and simplify the Rules Glossary area.
[Sic]
It's easy for older players to not get mixed up on these arguably, but a new player coming in and having similar terms for things which are very different or different in how they're handled it could be off putting versus bringing them in with an ease of understanding the system.
I think you underestimate the intelligence and comprehension capabilities of new players.
I'm not saying new players will be confused because I don't know them, but it's a lot of terms at once to learn and so the possibility is there.
Can't that be said of ANY term WOTC uses?
Precisely. At least Type and Subtype go together and I believe will probably be easier for new players to comprehend than Type and Species which have nothing to do with each other.
Potentially because you have subtype and creature type and with a similar name it could lead to confusion
It's not similar, unrelated terms. One is literally a subcategory of the other. It would be easier to understand, not harder
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 don’t understand how “subtype” would be confusing for new players.
I think "Choose your Subtype, Class, and Background" is slightly more confusing to newer players than "Choose your Species/Race, Class, and Background". It's not much more confusing, and they could explain it in the PHB, but I still think it's a bit more "unknown" than Species/Race is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I like Kind simply because it feels more fantasy. Could be a little strange getting used to memorizing it as it refers to character race (I don’t know what single word to use to describe what we’re choosing a word for) but literally every fantasy setting ever has that so it’s a non-issue.
I voted species in the survey although I felt it was a bit too scientific for a fantasy game. But it seemed better than the other two alternatives.
But now that I think more about it, subtype would be fine as well. I don’t have any paper books just the ones I buy here on DDB so when I use the “game rules” then “races” drop-down and pick a race and view the details every one has a description of what creature type is and in the “traits” section it starts with “Creature Type: You are Humanoid” or Creature Type: You are Fey” so it’s already there.
And I think more and more players will be using digital products like the rule books, more so than hardcover books and pen and paper, most players will see it broken down this way anyway.
Species is the most accurate term even scientifically speaking. We do not currently live in a world like the ones in DnD, with multiple humanoids sharing the same planet. But we did in the past. The closest Earth analogy to living with orcs and halflings was actually a reality just a few tens of thousands of years ago. Homo sapiens lived alongside a number of different species in the same genus, like Neaderthals and Homo floresiensis. We all inhabited the same world and even interbred. Their DNA is still present in our own, in small amounts, for many people.
Also, DnD has magic. So even if it wasn't scientifically accurate, which it is, it would still be fine. So the argument that it isn't science needs to go away for many reasons.
I'm not completely against using Type (Subtype). It works from a game term perspective. My issue with it, and this is a smaller personal thing, is that it only works as a mechanical game term.
The PCs and NPCs still need something to say, in character, in the game world. We as players and DMs need something to say in conversations as the characters. The writers of adventures need something for the characters to say. Species works best for that, to me. Type, Subtype, and Kind have negative baggage when used in conversations about real people, the way the characters would be talking about each other.
It seems more useful to have a mechanical term that also works as an in-universe RP term at the same time.
I could very much see the Wizards and scholars of any DnD world creating a way to classify genetic branches. And those words would translate to genus, species, etc. So I don't see any problem with the fantasy game using these terms in actual conversations. It seems more likely that the people in the world would say something like Species than Subtype. So I personally think it's a more useful mechanical term because it does more things well.
Species for me, but I don't like that as the term. However, "kind" and "(sub)type" are worthlessly vague if you don't already know they're referring to what used to be called race. I legitimately can't picture explaining the concept to a new player without having to reference the term "race" or "species", or at least "creature".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The former has actually been used in this context. In 3.5e, monsters had a type and (possibly) a subtype, and dwarves, elves, gnomes, halflings, and orcs all had matching subtype (kobolds, lizardfolk, and troglodytes shared the reptilian type, bugbears, goblins, and hobgoblins shared the goblinoid subtype; the remaining races from 3.5e didn't have associated monster entries).
Agreed. Discussions on the topic always seem to devolve into political arguments.
[REDACTED]
I don't care about politics, I just don't want them using a scientific term incorrectly. It's confusing.
If the (not)races can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, they would most likely have to be the same species and only be different breeds/races, or at most: subspecies.
"Kind" is probably even worse because creationists have used it to refer to genus or family as it suits them...
Subtype is purely a rules term so is free to mean whatever they need with no political, scientific, or religious baggage. Its perfect.
I don’t really care, I voted for species as I’m a science nerd and that is what they all are - different species some with 2+ subspecies.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Again, the "a species is a set of creatures that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring" is a super flawed definition that doesn't apply to asexual organisms, ring species, and plenty of other examples. Using species for D&D isn't scientifically incorrect. And even if it was, magic exists. Dragons can breed with humans, and they're clearly different species from a scientific perspective.
I'm fine with subtype, because I already know what a creature type is in D&D, but it will probably be confusing for newer players. Which is something that should be avoided.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Something about "subtype" just doesn't feel right to me. I think it's because of the "sub" element of the name and how sub feels less because of words like substandard and I don't want anyone to feel less; also as others said it could get confusing for new players given you have "creature type". Even if it is a more accurate scientific term I just think it's the last option they should go with for a replacement name.
I assume it's some issue with Pathfinder the reason they keep ignoring the best answer of "ancestry" to replace "race". As others have said ancestry would be perfect because then you can do the ABCs of character building - ancestry, background, and Class! I could also accept "lineage" if we can't have ancestry.
"Kind" and "species" feel honestly pretty similar to me so it's kind of a wash to me which is picked between them. "Species" is more scientific so there's that, but "kind" feels arguably less problematic and also maybe removes debates about how X and Y can't mix to create the PC you want because "they're sterile/biologically incompatible because of science" so there's that. I get in reality how some creatures might not mix, but you all we're playing fantasy where we can make fire with our minds and bring back the dead so you know scientific realities don't exactly apply; stop using it to block customization on PCs.
I love Wizards Of The Coast is changing things with removing ASIs from species based elements because since when does biology make you smarter just because you're born Y over Z and so forth and I get the desire behind the change of "race" as a term, but I don't know if "species" is the end best choice.
Species is certainly an option, but if they're going to change for years to come then I feel again the best answer is "ancestry" or "lineage". Pathfinder can't own the word "ancestry" because it's so general so they shouldn't worry over a lawsuit. If it's fear of being compared to Pathfinder - you already are/vice versa so again don't worry. :)
I don’t understand how “subtype” would be confusing for new players.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Potentially because you have subtype and creature type and with a similar name it could lead to confusion which it seems Wizards wants to avoid given how much they keep trying to clean up and simplify the Rules Glossary area.
I assume it's part of why they haven't tried "creature" in place of "race" - technically you are a creature of some kind but creature most know means humanoid versus fey versus demonic. Someone could ask if a subtype is the same as the creature type to which people would say "No", but it would be an easy mix up at the start and again it seems Wizards is trying to avoid confusion as much as possible on the 6e front. To be fair, subtype kind of fits with subclass and how that's a drop down menu if you will for which class you pick, but again between the options that are easily out there to replace "race" subtype just feels meh; also again "subtype" could get confused with subclass to a new player and yeah - see avoiding confusion.
It's easy for older players to not get mixed up on these arguably, but a new player coming in and having similar terms for things which are very different or different in how they're handled it could be off putting versus bringing them in with an ease of understanding the system.
I think you underestimate the intelligence and comprehension capabilities of new players.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I'm not saying new players will be confused because I don't know them, but it's a lot of terms at once to learn and so the possibility is there.
Can't that be said of ANY term WOTC uses?
Precisely. At least Type and Subtype go together and I believe will probably be easier for new players to comprehend than Type and Species which have nothing to do with each other.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It's not similar, unrelated terms. One is literally a subcategory of the other. It would be easier to understand, not harder
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 think "Choose your Subtype, Class, and Background" is slightly more confusing to newer players than "Choose your Species/Race, Class, and Background". It's not much more confusing, and they could explain it in the PHB, but I still think it's a bit more "unknown" than Species/Race is.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I like Kind simply because it feels more fantasy. Could be a little strange getting used to memorizing it as it refers to character race (I don’t know what single word to use to describe what we’re choosing a word for) but literally every fantasy setting ever has that so it’s a non-issue.
They... aren't, though?
From Oxford Languages:
species
/ˈspiːʃɪz,ˈspiːʃiːz,ˈspiːsiːz/
a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.
And it's kind of pointless to argue about science when all of these different peoples are in settings that have magic.
[REDACTED]
I voted species in the survey although I felt it was a bit too scientific for a fantasy game. But it seemed better than the other two alternatives.
But now that I think more about it, subtype would be fine as well. I don’t have any paper books just the ones I buy here on DDB so when I use the “game rules” then “races” drop-down and pick a race and view the details every one has a description of what creature type is and in the “traits” section it starts with “Creature Type: You are Humanoid” or Creature Type: You are Fey” so it’s already there.
And I think more and more players will be using digital products like the rule books, more so than hardcover books and pen and paper, most players will see it broken down this way anyway.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Species is the most accurate term even scientifically speaking. We do not currently live in a world like the ones in DnD, with multiple humanoids sharing the same planet. But we did in the past. The closest Earth analogy to living with orcs and halflings was actually a reality just a few tens of thousands of years ago. Homo sapiens lived alongside a number of different species in the same genus, like Neaderthals and Homo floresiensis. We all inhabited the same world and even interbred. Their DNA is still present in our own, in small amounts, for many people.
Also, DnD has magic. So even if it wasn't scientifically accurate, which it is, it would still be fine. So the argument that it isn't science needs to go away for many reasons.
I'm not completely against using Type (Subtype). It works from a game term perspective. My issue with it, and this is a smaller personal thing, is that it only works as a mechanical game term.
The PCs and NPCs still need something to say, in character, in the game world. We as players and DMs need something to say in conversations as the characters. The writers of adventures need something for the characters to say. Species works best for that, to me. Type, Subtype, and Kind have negative baggage when used in conversations about real people, the way the characters would be talking about each other.
It seems more useful to have a mechanical term that also works as an in-universe RP term at the same time.
I could very much see the Wizards and scholars of any DnD world creating a way to classify genetic branches. And those words would translate to genus, species, etc. So I don't see any problem with the fantasy game using these terms in actual conversations. It seems more likely that the people in the world would say something like Species than Subtype. So I personally think it's a more useful mechanical term because it does more things well.
Scientifically speaking, someone with modern training would go "WTF is this" and start inventing new words.
Species for me, but I don't like that as the term. However, "kind" and "(sub)type" are worthlessly vague if you don't already know they're referring to what used to be called race. I legitimately can't picture explaining the concept to a new player without having to reference the term "race" or "species", or at least "creature".