For another approach to PCs with parents of different species, the Tal'Dorei Reborn book offers this:
Mixed Ancestry Statistics
Only certain combinations of ancestries, such as half-elves and half-orcs, already have racial traits described in the fifth edition core rules. You can use these racial traits as is, or create your own mixed ancestry from any two races by choosing one or two racial traits from one parent’s race and exchanging them for the same number of traits from another parent’s race.
When you build a character of mixed ancestry, keep in mind that some racial traits are more mechanically powerful than others, while some are largely flavorful or narrative focused. As such, focus on swapping a narrative trait for another narrative trait, or a combat-focused trait for another combat-focused trait. Additionally, you must have your Game Master’s permission to use your replacement traits. As with any house rule, you and your Game Master might want to revisit your unique combination of traits later in the campaign if they feel overpowered or underpowered.
Has anyone (here) actually tried this? What was the example? How did it work out?
I have a backup character for an Exandria campaign that would be orc/drow, but I haven't had to use it yet
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)
For another approach to PCs with parents of different species, the Tal'Dorei Reborn book offers this:
Mixed Ancestry Statistics
Only certain combinations of ancestries, such as half-elves and half-orcs, already have racial traits described in the fifth edition core rules. You can use these racial traits as is, or create your own mixed ancestry from any two races by choosing one or two racial traits from one parent’s race and exchanging them for the same number of traits from another parent’s race.
When you build a character of mixed ancestry, keep in mind that some racial traits are more mechanically powerful than others, while some are largely flavorful or narrative focused. As such, focus on swapping a narrative trait for another narrative trait, or a combat-focused trait for another combat-focused trait. Additionally, you must have your Game Master’s permission to use your replacement traits. As with any house rule, you and your Game Master might want to revisit your unique combination of traits later in the campaign if they feel overpowered or underpowered.
Has anyone (here) actually tried this? What was the example? How did it work out?
I have a backup character for an Exandria campaign that would be orc/drow, but I haven't had to use it yet
I actually did that for my character in our CotN campaign. I just used the Half Elf stats as currently exist. Worked fine for me, gave myself stats and feats as we went on that made me more bulky, but I wasn't stressed on trying to make something that combined both.
I'm pretty happy with the way One D&D is handling hybrid races.
Certainly beats whatever the hell they were thinking when they wrote Dark Sun
Dark Sun was released in 1991, different owners, times and writers. It sold well too.
The dudes made a forcably-bred-into-slavery hybrid race made for forced labor and literally called it a mule. I, too, was released in 1991. The 90s weren't long enough ago that this sort of lazy and "problematic" fiction was mainstream.
You are correct about the different writers. I am thankful for that.
That's a whole can-o-worms, though.
I was simply pointing out different times different owners, and I am as old as D&D (1974 vintage) not saying it was correct just pointing out things were different then.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
I'm pretty happy with the way One D&D is handling hybrid races.
Certainly beats whatever the hell they were thinking when they wrote Dark Sun
Dark Sun was released in 1991, different owners, times and writers. It sold well too.
The dudes made a forcably-bred-into-slavery hybrid race made for forced labor and literally called it a mule. I, too, was released in 1991. The 90s weren't long enough ago that this sort of lazy and "problematic" fiction was mainstream.
You are correct about the different writers. I am thankful for that.
That's a whole can-o-worms, though.
I was simply pointing out different times different owners, and I am as old as D&D (1974 vintage) not saying it was correct just pointing out things were different then.
I mean, strictly from a narrative/worldbuilding sense, the existence of something like this is really not a red flag. No, it's not all nice and squeaky clean and suitable for all ages, but was anything about Dark Sun like that? As I understand it the whole setting was pretty grimdark. Obviously not something everyone will enjoy, but it's a legitimate option as a roleplay setting piece.
The dudes made a forcably-bred-into-slavery hybrid race made for forced labor and literally called it a mule.
Why is this a problem?
I agree that it's evil. It's quite literally meant to be. But this is a game about - among other things - good vs evil. So why is it problematic that evil beings (in this case sorcerer-kings (and -queens)) do evil things?
Who is this offensive to? Mules?
And why are you offended by a race of infertile dwarf/men bred for slavery - but not offended by systematically horried squidfolk with mind control powers, who eat the brains of sentients? And who, btw, breed them for slavery and food supply.
Please understand that I'm not trying to attack or offend. I'm genuinely curious about the reasoning behind this.
Because the current writers don't seem to know how to be nuanced, and how to write Grim Dark settings. Dark Sun is a D&D Grim Dark Setting, where evil is over the top evil, and Good is clawing at sand to survive. The Mul (Half-Dwarves) are a perfect example of a player option that means your parents were slaves, and you were bred to be a sterile slave in either the Gladiator Pits or used as Mindless labor. Mul BTW are bigger than Goliath, hairless, and tough. They have the most tragic backstories, and good players can really make an amazing Himbo out of them. But... WotC has been hampered by Hasbro for far too long for them to make good on a setting like Darksun.
Because the current writers don't seem to know how to be nuanced, and how to write Grim Dark settings. Dark Sun is a D&D Grim Dark Setting, where evil is over the top evil, and Good is clawing at sand to survive. The Mul (Half-Dwarves) are a perfect example of a player option that means your parents were slaves, and you were bred to be a sterile slave in either the Gladiator Pits or used as Mindless labor. Mul BTW are bigger than Goliath, hairless, and tough. They have the most tragic backstories, and good players can really make an amazing Himbo out of them. But... WotC has been hampered by Hasbro for far too long for them to make good on a setting like Darksun.
But ... I agree with all of that, but ... Mind Flayers are still in the game. In, technically or potentially, all games. How are they any better than Muls?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
But... WotC has been hampered by Hasbro for far too long for them to make good on a setting like Darksun.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
Honestly, I'd much rather have WotC focus on creating interesting new settings, grimdark or otherwise, than continue to self-own by rehashing old settings to the satisfaction of nobody. I'd like to see them a) develop a new base setting for the 2024 books that isn't even remotely like FR, b) continue working with a diverse set of writers to give us more new mini-settings like Radiant Citadel, c) if they really want to revisit old settings, publish ONE comprehensive book that lists many old settings and briefly describes whatever mechanical changes are necessary to fit each of them in 5e, then be done with it for good.
This is all off-topic worm-stomping though.
On the topic of half-dwarves, I think the One D&D solution really is best, because it sidesteps the need for weird somewhat inappropriate conversations about which races can have children with which others. I wasn't aware of the Matt Mercer approach, but it looks like it just amounts to very vague guidance for a DM that they admit is likely to produce unbalanced results.
But ... I agree with all of that, but ... Mind Flayers are still in the game. In, technically or potentially, all games. How are they any better than Muls?
The idea is that the sorcerer kings wanted the best traits in their slaves possible, so they forcibly bred the enslaved populations. Additionally, every major city is described to have had an enslaved population, with the muls being the default “slave race,” which is hugely offensive and altogether makes it much worse than some other forms of slavery in fiction.
The definition of a species is that it can't create a fertile child with a member of another species.
This is not actually correct—it is an anachronism which was taught and continues to be taught in schools as teachers perpetuate the myths they themselves had been taught. While many species produce infernal offspring, plenty of different species can, in fact create fertile offspring as a result of inter-species breeding.
In fact, you yourself may be a product of such a coupling—our ancestor species and the distinct species of Neanderthals both coupled and produced fertile offspring. You very well might have some Neanderthal DNA in your system from this ancient cross-species breeding, with higher rates of Neanderthal DNA if you are of European heritage.
And, of course. It ignores the fact science means fairly little in a world of magic—magic could produce viability where biology alone might not.
People seem to love spending their precious earthly time drawing up a matrix of who can and can not have children with whom in a D&D game. Kinda weirds me out. Double weird when we use words like "breed" for sentient creatures. Bleh.
Want to play a third-gnome third-orc third-kraken in my game? Sure why the hell not.
The definition of a species is that it can't create a fertile child with a member of another species.
This is not actually correct—it is an anachronism which was taught and continues to be taught in schools as teachers perpetuate the myths they themselves had been taught. While many species produce infernal offspring, plenty of different species can, in fact create fertile offspring as a result of inter-species breeding.
In fact, you yourself may be a product of such a coupling—our ancestor species and the distinct species of Neanderthals both coupled and produced fertile offspring. You very well might have some Neanderthal DNA in your system from this ancient cross-species breeding, with higher rates of Neanderthal DNA if you are of European heritage.
"Species" as such don't really exist; they're an attempt to impose categories on a huge smear of genetic drift, partly because we didn't know how it works, partly because categorizing things is just something humans seem to do, and partly because it makes it possible to talk about lifeforms in a more general way than "this one specific weird duck".
And, of course. It ignores the fact science means fairly little in a world of magic—magic could produce viability where biology alone might not.
Indeed. "A god did it" is the primary excuse for everything biological going on in D&D, except for the things that a wizard did.
The dudes made a forcably-bred-into-slavery hybrid race made for forced labor and literally called it a mule.
Why is this a problem?
I agree that it's evil. It's quite literally meant to be. But this is a game about - among other things - good vs evil. So why is it problematic that evil beings (in this case sorcerer-kings (and -queens)) do evil things?
Who is this offensive to? Mules?
And why are you offended by a race of infertile dwarf/men bred for slavery - but not offended by systematically horried squidfolk with mind control powers, who eat the brains of sentients? And who, btw, breed them for slavery and food supply.
Please understand that I'm not trying to attack or offend. I'm genuinely curious about the reasoning behind this.
Because the current writers don't seem to know how to be nuanced, and how to write Grim Dark settings. Dark Sun is a D&D Grim Dark Setting, where evil is over the top evil, and Good is clawing at sand to survive. The Mul (Half-Dwarves) are a perfect example of a player option that means your parents were slaves, and you were bred to be a sterile slave in either the Gladiator Pits or used as Mindless labor. Mul BTW are bigger than Goliath, hairless, and tough. They have the most tragic backstories, and good players can really make an amazing Himbo out of them. But... WotC has been hampered by Hasbro for far too long for them to make good on a setting like Darksun.
Not to side track too much, but I don’t remember muls being bigger than a Goliath. Half-giants, another dark sun playable species, were probably bigger than goliaths. But I could be remembering wrong.
The dudes made a forcably-bred-into-slavery hybrid race made for forced labor and literally called it a mule.
Why is this a problem?
I agree that it's evil. It's quite literally meant to be. But this is a game about - among other things - good vs evil. So why is it problematic that evil beings (in this case sorcerer-kings (and -queens)) do evil things?
Who is this offensive to? Mules?
And why are you offended by a race of infertile dwarf/men bred for slavery - but not offended by systematically horried squidfolk with mind control powers, who eat the brains of sentients? And who, btw, breed them for slavery and food supply.
Please understand that I'm not trying to attack or offend. I'm genuinely curious about the reasoning behind this.
Because the current writers don't seem to know how to be nuanced, and how to write Grim Dark settings. Dark Sun is a D&D Grim Dark Setting, where evil is over the top evil, and Good is clawing at sand to survive. The Mul (Half-Dwarves) are a perfect example of a player option that means your parents were slaves, and you were bred to be a sterile slave in either the Gladiator Pits or used as Mindless labor. Mul BTW are bigger than Goliath, hairless, and tough. They have the most tragic backstories, and good players can really make an amazing Himbo out of them. But... WotC has been hampered by Hasbro for far too long for them to make good on a setting like Darksun.
Not to side track too much, but I don’t remember muls being bigger than a Goliath. Half-giants, another dark sun playable species, were probably bigger than goliaths. But I could be remembering wrong.
I don’t know much about Dark Sun, but you could probably replace half-giants with goliaths if you wanted to run Dark Sun in 5e.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I really like D&D, especially Ravenloft, Exandria and the Upside Down from Stranger Things. My pronouns are she/they (genderfae).
Because the current writers don't seem to know how to be nuanced, and how to write Grim Dark settings. Dark Sun is a D&D Grim Dark Setting, where evil is over the top evil, and Good is clawing at sand to survive. The Mul (Half-Dwarves) are a perfect example of a player option that means your parents were slaves, and you were bred to be a sterile slave in either the Gladiator Pits or used as Mindless labor. Mul BTW are bigger than Goliath, hairless, and tough. They have the most tragic backstories, and good players can really make an amazing Himbo out of them. But... WotC has been hampered by Hasbro for far too long for them to make good on a setting like Darksun.
But ... I agree with all of that, but ... Mind Flayers are still in the game. In, technically or potentially, all games. How are they any better than Muls?
Monsters don't have to be better (morally etc) than a player option.
Regarding Muls more broadly - if they were to publish Dark Sun today (big if) they probably wouldn't want half-dwarves to have only one possible backstory/origin. And that's not unique to Dark Sun, there was a time when the majority of half-orcs were the result of nonconsensual orc/human "couplings" during raids. It's just squicky and reductive, even for a supposed grimdark setting.
Because the current writers don't seem to know how to be nuanced, and how to write Grim Dark settings. Dark Sun is a D&D Grim Dark Setting, where evil is over the top evil, and Good is clawing at sand to survive. The Mul (Half-Dwarves) are a perfect example of a player option that means your parents were slaves, and you were bred to be a sterile slave in either the Gladiator Pits or used as Mindless labor. Mul BTW are bigger than Goliath, hairless, and tough. They have the most tragic backstories, and good players can really make an amazing Himbo out of them. But... WotC has been hampered by Hasbro for far too long for them to make good on a setting like Darksun.
But ... I agree with all of that, but ... Mind Flayers are still in the game. In, technically or potentially, all games. How are they any better than Muls?
Monsters don't have to be better (morally etc) than a player option.
Regarding Muls more broadly - if they were to publish Dark Sun today (big if) they probably wouldn't want half-dwarves to have only one possible backstory/origin. And that's not unique to Dark Sun, there was a time when the majority of half-orcs were the result of nonconsensual orc/human "couplings" during raids. It's just squicky and reductive, even for a supposed grimdark setting.
I doubt muls would be "half-dwarves" at all in an updated Dark Sun. Lore-wise, they'd be more like simic hybrids from Ravnica -- a species of their own, bred/created for a specific role
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)
The idea is that the sorcerer kings wanted the best traits in their slaves possible, so they forcibly bred the enslaved populations. Additionally, every major city is described to have had an enslaved population, with the muls being the default “slave race,” which is hugely offensive and altogether makes it much worse than some other forms of slavery in fiction.
Slavery is a historical fact. Obviously it's one of the worst things humans in the real world did to other humans in the real world - but this isn't about that. This is about imaginary evil sorcerer-kings doing imaginary bad things to create an imaginary race of super-slaves.
And, please: Mind flayers do exactly the same. Except they also eat their brains.
I .. just honestly have to admit: I don't get it.
Yes, it's horrendously evil. But I just cannot for the life of me see who the offended party is here. If this was a crime - who's the victim?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
The idea is that the sorcerer kings wanted the best traits in their slaves possible, so they forcibly bred the enslaved populations. Additionally, every major city is described to have had an enslaved population, with the muls being the default “slave race,” which is hugely offensive and altogether makes it much worse than some other forms of slavery in fiction.
Slavery is a historical fact. Obviously it's one of the worst things humans in the real world did to other humans in the real world - but this isn't about that. This is about imaginary evil sorcerer-kings doing imaginary bad things to create an imaginary race of super-slaves.
And, please: Mind flayers do exactly the same. Except they also eat their brains.
I .. just honestly have to admit: I don't get it.
Yes, it's horrendously evil. But I just cannot for the life of me see who the offended party is here. If this was a crime - who's the victim?
People that see the “forced breeding” and “slave race” bit and get triggered or at least severely uncomfortable. Kinda ruins the fun for them.
70s Dark Sun is doable in many campaigns, but it’d never survive as something “mainstream,” especially since Wizards has been marketing more and more to younger folks recently. That’s where the money is. Imagine a kid asking their parents for a Dark Sun book, the parents ask what it’s about, and the poor kid is forced to explain how he wants to play as a slave in a dystopian desert.
Granted, that’s an extreme example, but it’s not gonna fly these days. Dark Sun has too many mature themes. It’s just not where the audience is.
I have a backup character for an Exandria campaign that would be orc/drow, but I haven't had to use it yet
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 actually did that for my character in our CotN campaign. I just used the Half Elf stats as currently exist. Worked fine for me, gave myself stats and feats as we went on that made me more bulky, but I wasn't stressed on trying to make something that combined both.
I was simply pointing out different times different owners, and I am as old as D&D (1974 vintage) not saying it was correct just pointing out things were different then.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
I mean, strictly from a narrative/worldbuilding sense, the existence of something like this is really not a red flag. No, it's not all nice and squeaky clean and suitable for all ages, but was anything about Dark Sun like that? As I understand it the whole setting was pretty grimdark. Obviously not something everyone will enjoy, but it's a legitimate option as a roleplay setting piece.
Yes, I love Muls.
Because the current writers don't seem to know how to be nuanced, and how to write Grim Dark settings. Dark Sun is a D&D Grim Dark Setting, where evil is over the top evil, and Good is clawing at sand to survive. The Mul (Half-Dwarves) are a perfect example of a player option that means your parents were slaves, and you were bred to be a sterile slave in either the Gladiator Pits or used as Mindless labor. Mul BTW are bigger than Goliath, hairless, and tough. They have the most tragic backstories, and good players can really make an amazing Himbo out of them. But... WotC has been hampered by Hasbro for far too long for them to make good on a setting like Darksun.
But ... I agree with all of that, but ... Mind Flayers are still in the game. In, technically or potentially, all games. How are they any better than Muls?
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
Honestly, I'd much rather have WotC focus on creating interesting new settings, grimdark or otherwise, than continue to self-own by rehashing old settings to the satisfaction of nobody. I'd like to see them a) develop a new base setting for the 2024 books that isn't even remotely like FR, b) continue working with a diverse set of writers to give us more new mini-settings like Radiant Citadel, c) if they really want to revisit old settings, publish ONE comprehensive book that lists many old settings and briefly describes whatever mechanical changes are necessary to fit each of them in 5e, then be done with it for good.
This is all off-topic worm-stomping though.
On the topic of half-dwarves, I think the One D&D solution really is best, because it sidesteps the need for weird somewhat inappropriate conversations about which races can have children with which others. I wasn't aware of the Matt Mercer approach, but it looks like it just amounts to very vague guidance for a DM that they admit is likely to produce unbalanced results.
The idea is that the sorcerer kings wanted the best traits in their slaves possible, so they forcibly bred the enslaved populations. Additionally, every major city is described to have had an enslaved population, with the muls being the default “slave race,” which is hugely offensive and altogether makes it much worse than some other forms of slavery in fiction.
Terra Lubridia archive:
The Bloody Barnacle | The Gut | The Athene Crusader | The Jewel of Atlantis
All races should be able to inter-breed.
The definition of a species is that it can't create a fertile child with a member of another species.
This is not actually correct—it is an anachronism which was taught and continues to be taught in schools as teachers perpetuate the myths they themselves had been taught. While many species produce infernal offspring, plenty of different species can, in fact create fertile offspring as a result of inter-species breeding.
In fact, you yourself may be a product of such a coupling—our ancestor species and the distinct species of Neanderthals both coupled and produced fertile offspring. You very well might have some Neanderthal DNA in your system from this ancient cross-species breeding, with higher rates of Neanderthal DNA if you are of European heritage.
And, of course. It ignores the fact science means fairly little in a world of magic—magic could produce viability where biology alone might not.
People seem to love spending their precious earthly time drawing up a matrix of who can and can not have children with whom in a D&D game. Kinda weirds me out. Double weird when we use words like "breed" for sentient creatures. Bleh.
Want to play a third-gnome third-orc third-kraken in my game? Sure why the hell not.
"Species" as such don't really exist; they're an attempt to impose categories on a huge smear of genetic drift, partly because we didn't know how it works, partly because categorizing things is just something humans seem to do, and partly because it makes it possible to talk about lifeforms in a more general way than "this one specific weird duck".
Indeed. "A god did it" is the primary excuse for everything biological going on in D&D, except for the things that a wizard did.
Not to side track too much, but I don’t remember muls being bigger than a Goliath. Half-giants, another dark sun playable species, were probably bigger than goliaths. But I could be remembering wrong.
I don’t know much about Dark Sun, but you could probably replace half-giants with goliaths if you wanted to run Dark Sun in 5e.
I really like D&D, especially Ravenloft, Exandria and the Upside Down from Stranger Things. My pronouns are she/they (genderfae).
In 4e goliaths were equivalent to half-giants.
Monsters don't have to be better (morally etc) than a player option.
Regarding Muls more broadly - if they were to publish Dark Sun today (big if) they probably wouldn't want half-dwarves to have only one possible backstory/origin. And that's not unique to Dark Sun, there was a time when the majority of half-orcs were the result of nonconsensual orc/human "couplings" during raids. It's just squicky and reductive, even for a supposed grimdark setting.
I doubt muls would be "half-dwarves" at all in an updated Dark Sun. Lore-wise, they'd be more like simic hybrids from Ravnica -- a species of their own, bred/created for a specific role
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)
Slavery is a historical fact. Obviously it's one of the worst things humans in the real world did to other humans in the real world - but this isn't about that. This is about imaginary evil sorcerer-kings doing imaginary bad things to create an imaginary race of super-slaves.
And, please: Mind flayers do exactly the same. Except they also eat their brains.
I .. just honestly have to admit: I don't get it.
Yes, it's horrendously evil. But I just cannot for the life of me see who the offended party is here. If this was a crime - who's the victim?
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
People that see the “forced breeding” and “slave race” bit and get triggered or at least severely uncomfortable. Kinda ruins the fun for them.
70s Dark Sun is doable in many campaigns, but it’d never survive as something “mainstream,” especially since Wizards has been marketing more and more to younger folks recently. That’s where the money is. Imagine a kid asking their parents for a Dark Sun book, the parents ask what it’s about, and the poor kid is forced to explain how he wants to play as a slave in a dystopian desert.
Granted, that’s an extreme example, but it’s not gonna fly these days. Dark Sun has too many mature themes. It’s just not where the audience is.
Terra Lubridia archive:
The Bloody Barnacle | The Gut | The Athene Crusader | The Jewel of Atlantis