... Again here is my problem. Under the UA in my party my character's half-sister is half-elf. Now the player has to change her character traits to be either all the human traits or all the elven traits and just take features of the other. ...
No she doesn't.
The R5e half-elf and half-orc aren't going away. Those books aren't dying. They mey get the Volo's Guide/Tome of Foes treatment in 2024, but even if they do people with the old versions can still use them. Jeremy Crawford is not going to invade your friend's home and hold her at gunpoint until she changes her character to a 1DD half-elf. If she wants to use the new stuff, she can. If she wants to keep using the still-totally-available old stuff, she can. Hell, the Origins document explicitly made allowances for older D&D content that still had fixed species bonuses, your friend can keep her half-elf stat block and simply redesign her background if she cares to.
I have a Mammon tiefling and a Glasya tiefling both built using the old Tome of Foes tiffle variations, and y'know what? I've never once received a message from DDB threatening action against my account if I don't desist in the use of Legacy content this instant. Hell, I still have old characters built using UA options from the days of yore when DDB did UA, disappeared content nobody can use anymore without homebrewing it themselves or cloning it from someone who has the old sheets. I still have copies of the Bilgewater subclasses and occasionally bust them out for specific one-shots. I have the original Blood Hunter on a few older characters. Nobody has ever once told me I need to go through and update all those sheets to the newst content or Action Will Be Taken.
If your friend wants to keep her current half-elf character the way she is? Literally nothing is stopping her. Same with half-orcs. Same with anything from the R5e core books. Y'all wanna keep using that stuff? Nobody will say you nay. It's your character and your game, do whatever you want. Just don't try and force this stuff into our games, or into everybody's games.
I'd like to float the idea that maybe nobody here is going to get the definitive final blow. There won't be any single post that everyone can look at and say, "ah, yes. The argument is over."
Or rather, if there is, it won't be for the quality of the argument therein, it'll be because it's a mod having to shut things down for getting too heated.
The person who got the last comment before that happens isn't the winner.
... Again here is my problem. Under the UA in my party my character's half-sister is half-elf. Now the player has to change her character traits to be either all the human traits or all the elven traits and just take features of the other. ...
No she doesn't.
The R5e half-elf and half-orc aren't going away. Those books aren't dying. They mey get the Volo's Guide/Tome of Foes treatment in 2024, but even if they do people with the old versions can still use them. Jeremy Crawford is not going to invade your friend's home and hold her at gunpoint until she changes her character to a 1DD half-elf. If she wants to use the new stuff, she can. If she wants to keep using the still-totally-available old stuff, she can. Hell, the Origins document explicitly made allowances for older D&D content that still had fixed species bonuses, your friend can keep her half-elf stat block and simply redesign her background if she cares to.
I have a Mammon tiefling and a Glasya tiefling both built using the old Tome of Foes tiffle variations, and y'know what? I've never once received a message from DDB threatening action against my account if I don't desist in the use of Legacy content this instant. Hell, I still have old characters built using UA options from the days of yore when DDB did UA, disappeared content nobody can use anymore without homebrewing it themselves or cloning it from someone who has the old sheets. I still have copies of the Bilgewater subclasses and occasionally bust them out for specific one-shots. I have the original Blood Hunter on a few older characters. Nobody has ever once told me I need to go through and update all those sheets to the newst content or Action Will Be Taken.
If your friend wants to keep her current half-elf character the way she is? Literally nothing is stopping her. Same with half-orcs. Same with anything from the R5e core books. Y'all wanna keep using that stuff? Nobody will say you nay. It's your character and your game, do whatever you want. Just don't try and force this stuff into our games, or into everybody's games.
Then why come up with the UA version of mixed races? If everything stays the same? Now what if we want a half-human half-halfing? No rules for that. Now we have to use the UA rules. Which I don't like. I stated above why I don't like the rule stated in the UA. I would change it by the time One D&D is done. Mainly because I don't like the idea of it only being traits from one parents race.
I'd actually argue that it is also hurtful in the new UA rules.
Is this how it actually makes you feel or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? Because I'm telling you how things actually make me feel.
Yes it does make it feel that the way they have it that it ignores half their heritage. That it is just cosmetic. That one may not actually be considered half their heritage by just making it cosmetic. Imagine saying that to someone in the real world. We don't have to as even today it is said.
Of course no one would say that, because it makes no sense. But we also don't get inherent stats and features from our heritage, that's bioessentialism and it's a pretty racist mode of thought. The way they are handling multiracial characters in the playtest, on the other hand, treats multiracial heritage as a lore detail about a character. It doesn't treat multiracial people as something completely alien from and actually encourages there to be a blend of influences in the character where it matters, in the Background. It allows the honoring of the entire heritage and person without creating some sort of special exclusionary classification for them.
You know that is not true because this is done historically. You bring up it being a racist thought but seem to ignore the history of when multi ethnicity. Where a drop of a different ethnic blood considered you that ethnicity.
Umm ... this is called the One Drop Rule and it is awful, racist, and is definitely not a good supporting argument for you to make.
I mean you basically said, "I know you said something is racist but have you considered [something even more racist]?"
I'd actually argue that it is also hurtful in the new UA rules.
Is this how it actually makes you feel or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? Because I'm telling you how things actually make me feel.
Yes it does make it feel that the way they have it that it ignores half their heritage. That it is just cosmetic. That one may not actually be considered half their heritage by just making it cosmetic. Imagine saying that to someone in the real world. We don't have to as even today it is said.
Of course no one would say that, because it makes no sense. But we also don't get inherent stats and features from our heritage, that's bioessentialism and it's a pretty racist mode of thought. The way they are handling multiracial characters in the playtest, on the other hand, treats multiracial heritage as a lore detail about a character. It doesn't treat multiracial people as something completely alien from and actually encourages there to be a blend of influences in the character where it matters, in the Background. It allows the honoring of the entire heritage and person without creating some sort of special exclusionary classification for them.
You know that is not true because this is done historically. You bring up it being a racist thought but seem to ignore the history of when multi ethnicity. Where a drop of a different ethnic blood considered you that ethnicity.
Umm ... this is called the One Drop Rule and it is awful, racist, and is definitely not a good supporting argument for you to make.
It doe
ummm I am making it to support why I don't like the new set up. That is why I am bringing it up. I feel this is what the UA rule does. Tell me why you think what I am saying is wrong. I do not like the new UA for children of different humanoid kinds as it just seems that it is really your just X race and the other race is just for flavor. The other race isn't important to you, it is just to spice up your lore. It doesn't really count. I happen to think it both counts and both are important and be more than cosmetic changes.
Then why come up with the UA version of mixed races? If everything stays the same? Now what if we want a half-human half-halfing? No rules for that. Now we have to use the UA rules. Which I don't like. I stated above why I don't like the rule stated in the UA. I would change it by the time One D&D is done. Mainly because I don't like the idea of it only being traits from one parents race.
The Origins blurb for mixed species is there because people want to play mixed-species characters and have been doing it the way they laid out in that document for most of the entire run of 5e. Crawford said so himself - that wasn't a rule Wizards invented, it's just them acknowledging what players already do in many cases.
Half-human, half-halfling? Start human, set your size to Small, use your background feat for Lucky. Boom. Done. Shortstack human with limited halfling luck.
Not all combinations are going to be as easy of course, but Wizards cannot invent a "Half [X], half [Y]" stat block for every conceivable combination of species. Especially once you get past the idea that only pureblooded species can intermingle and demanding mechanical support for Heinz 57 Allspice bloodlines. At some point, the onus shifts from Wizards to the player wanting to mingle four or more bloodlines. At some point, the only feasible answer is going to be "ask your DM and break out the homebrew."
I do not like the new UA for children of different humanoid kinds
I cannot say this is wrong, you like what you like.
as it just seems that it is really your just X race and the other race is just for flavor. The other race isn't important to you, it is just to spice up your lore. It doesn't really count.
That's a very limited view that basically boils everything about one's heritage down to just one's special features and ignores the other big factors of character creation like the Background and the Feat.
I happen to think it both counts and both are important and be more than cosmetic changes.
Lore is more than just cosmetic. Background is more than just cosmetic. Level 1 Feats are more than just cosmetic.
All of those are significant aspects of character creation and work to portray the essence of a character, including a detail like multiracial heritage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I don't know if it's been suggested yet, but maybe also allowing a hybrid character to count as both for stuff that cares about their race, like feats, magic items, and so on, might be something to consider as well?
Maybe a half-elf in this version would just be able to shrug off the claw attack of a ghoul. Maybe a half-dwarf can use the Axe of the Dwarvish Lords without being affected by its curse. Circumstantial but flavourful stuff like that.
EDIT: To expand on this idea, I have the following in mind for more concrete rules surrounding this:-
Both parents must be of a playable race.
You gain the mechanical traits for the race of one of the parents as before.
You can mix and match the visual characteristics of the parents' races as before.
If your parents are of different sizes, you choose one of those sizes for your character.
If either parent has special senses like darkvision, you have the option to also have those senses.
You count as both parents' races for any prerequisite or effect that requires you to be either race, and you also count for any prerequisites or effects that your parents also count for pertaining to race (such as a duergar counting as a dwarf, or a bugbear counting as a goblinoid).
If either parent is a Fey or has the Fey Ancestry trait, you also gain the Fey Ancestry trait.
I do not like the new UA for children of different humanoid kinds
I cannot say this is wrong, you like what you like.
as it just seems that it is really your just X race and the other race is just for flavor. The other race isn't important to you, it is just to spice up your lore. It doesn't really count.
That's a very limited view that basically boils everything about one's heritage down to just one's special features and ignores the other big factors of character creation like the Background and the Feat.
I happen to think it both counts and both are important and be more than cosmetic changes.
Lore is more than just cosmetic. Background is more than just cosmetic. Level 1 Feats are more than just cosmetic.
All of those are significant aspects of character creation and work to portray the essence of a character, including a detail like multiracial heritage.
You're right. Lore is more than cosmetic that is why the UA rule for mixed races are bad. They make that just cosmetic. It literally says If you’d like to play the child of such a wondrous pairing, choose two Race options that are Humanoid to represent your parents. Then determine which of those Race options provides your game traits: Size, Speed, and special traits. You can then mix and match visual characteristics—color, ear shape, and the like—of the two options. For example, if your character has a halfling and a gnome parent, you might choose Halfling for your game traits and then decide that your character has the pointed ears that are characteristic of a gnome
That makes it cosmetic. The part where you just mix and match visual characteristic. Again, I would change it to get a trait from each parent's race so you get at least one from each. So that one of your parents are not just visual characteristics.
I have no problem with backgrounds and feats. You're right about that. That adds things. Though you can have two people with the same feats and backgrounds be different people.
You're right. Lore is more than cosmetic that is why the UA rule for mixed races are bad. They make that just cosmetic.
No, they make multiracial heritage into a lore detail and then encourage you to incorporate it into their Background and Feat choices. It's not just cosmetic.
It literally says If you’d like to play the child of such a wondrous pairing, choose two Race options that are Humanoid to represent your parents. Then determine which of those Race options provides your game traits: Size, Speed, and special traits. You can then mix and match visual characteristics—color, ear shape, and the like—of the two options. For example, if your character has a halfling and a gnome parent, you might choose Halfling for your game traits and then decide that your character has the pointed ears that are characteristic of a gnome
That makes it cosmetic. The part where you just mix and match visual characteristic. Again, I would change it to get a trait from each parent's race so you get at least one from each. So that one of your parents are not just visual characteristics.
I find this to be somewhat obsessed with having to mechanize one's hereditary bloodline history rather than treating a character's background as a holistic mix of heredity and culture and training. That obsession with specifically having to portray how one's blood affects one's capabilities is what I find to be bioessentialist and kind of creepy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
You're right. Lore is more than cosmetic that is why the UA rule for mixed races are bad. They make that just cosmetic.
No, they make multiracial heritage into a lore detail and then encourage you to incorporate it into their Background and Feat choices. It's not just cosmetic.
It literally says If you’d like to play the child of such a wondrous pairing, choose two Race options that are Humanoid to represent your parents. Then determine which of those Race options provides your game traits: Size, Speed, and special traits. You can then mix and match visual characteristics—color, ear shape, and the like—of the two options. For example, if your character has a halfling and a gnome parent, you might choose Halfling for your game traits and then decide that your character has the pointed ears that are characteristic of a gnome
That makes it cosmetic. The part where you just mix and match visual characteristic. Again, I would change it to get a trait from each parent's race so you get at least one from each. So that one of your parents are not just visual characteristics.
I find this to be somewhat obsessed with having to mechanize one's hereditary bloodline history rather than treating a character's background as a holistic mix of heredity and culture and training. That obsession with specifically having to portray how one's blood affects one's capabilities is what I find to be bioessentialist and kind of creepy.
Then why don't we get rid of races all together. No tremor sense for dwarfs, no breath weapons for Dragonborn. It should all be backgrounds and feats. Why humans should be able to get breath weapons. Until that time that we get rid of races and racial traits we have to deal with that.
You're right. Lore is more than cosmetic that is why the UA rule for mixed races are bad. They make that just cosmetic.
No, they make multiracial heritage into a lore detail and then encourage you to incorporate it into their Background and Feat choices. It's not just cosmetic.
It literally says If you’d like to play the child of such a wondrous pairing, choose two Race options that are Humanoid to represent your parents. Then determine which of those Race options provides your game traits: Size, Speed, and special traits. You can then mix and match visual characteristics—color, ear shape, and the like—of the two options. For example, if your character has a halfling and a gnome parent, you might choose Halfling for your game traits and then decide that your character has the pointed ears that are characteristic of a gnome
That makes it cosmetic. The part where you just mix and match visual characteristic. Again, I would change it to get a trait from each parent's race so you get at least one from each. So that one of your parents are not just visual characteristics.
I find this to be somewhat obsessed with having to mechanize one's hereditary bloodline history rather than treating a character's background as a holistic mix of heredity and culture and training. That obsession with specifically having to portray how one's blood affects one's capabilities is what I find to be bioessentialist and kind of creepy.
Then why don't we get rid of races all together. No tremor sense for dwarfs, no breath weapons for Dragonborn. It should all be backgrounds and feats. Why humans should be able to get breath weapons. Until that time that we get rid of races and racial traits we have to deal with that.
This is an exaggerated response to what I have said but at the same time not as ridiculous as you're trying to make it sound. Things like that are done in other games and they work out just fine, I'm just pretty sure the D&D community would not receive that very well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Then why come up with the UA version of mixed races? If everything stays the same? Now what if we want a half-human half-halfing? No rules for that. Now we have to use the UA rules. Which I don't like. I stated above why I don't like the rule stated in the UA. I would change it by the time One D&D is done. Mainly because I don't like the idea of it only being traits from one parents race.
The Origins blurb for mixed species is there because people want to play mixed-species characters and have been doing it the way they laid out in that document for most of the entire run of 5e. Crawford said so himself - that wasn't a rule Wizards invented, it's just them acknowledging what players already do in many cases.
Half-human, half-halfling? Start human, set your size to Small, use your background feat for Lucky. Boom. Done. Shortstack human with limited halfling luck.
Not all combinations are going to be as easy of course, but Wizards cannot invent a "Half [X], half [Y]" stat block for every conceivable combination of species. Especially once you get past the idea that only pureblooded species can intermingle and demanding mechanical support for Heinz 57 Allspice bloodlines. At some point, the onus shifts from Wizards to the player wanting to mingle four or more bloodlines. At some point, the only feasible answer is going to be "ask your DM and break out the homebrew."
Again, I brought up what I think. If you just want me to say I am wrong and you're right then fine I will do that,.
I have said how I would change it. Is there anything wrong with what I said. Again it was in the Critical Role Taldori Reborn book. You choose one or two traits from one parent and replace it with the other. So a human/halfling can have versatile or lucky
Obviously all of this could have been avoided if all characters were humans from the get-go and remained that way, and of course your own world can be that way if you so choose.
I see people have brought up bio-essentialism again, and this is why I argue that it is a fantasy game and not an analogue for the real world.
In the real world (so far) we have humans and animals that aren't humans. We have no other real humanoid species to compare ourselves to. If one of the other proto-humanoid species (like Neanderthal) had survived till today as distinct and separate, it is totally possible that they would, it some way, have a feature that is inferior or superior to homo-sapiens-sapiens.
Let's be 100% clear. My personal position is that all humans (homo-sapiens-sapiens) are EQUAL. None of us are biologically predisposed to being inferior or superior, so anyone who wants to call me racist is wrong. Humans are equal, period.
But I am capable of comprehending a reality (whether fanatical or not) where their could be a humanoid species that is some how inferior or superior, so we can have that in a fantasy world without the practitioner of the game being racist IRL.
I would also argue to those who continue to decry "Bio-essentialism Bad!" that we currently have in the game multiple humanoid races that literally have different biological benefits because of their race.
ALL Elves have darkvision because they are elves. Bio-essentialism. So if you want to get rid of Bio-E you're going to need a game where every playable race starts off with the exact same biological base, and then you pick and choose whatever characteristics you want. Everyone is the same.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Again, I brought up what I think. If you just want me to say I am wrong and you're right then fine I will do that,.
I have said how I would change it. Is there anything wrong with what I said. Again it was in the Critical Role Taldori Reborn book. You choose one or two traits from one parent and replace it with the other. So a human/halfling can have versatile or lucky
That would be outlandishly difficult for Wizards to do, given that they would have to come up with a formal system for labelling traits as "Swappable" or "Unswappable" and effectively build a point-buy species builder save without the points or any of the fluidity of such a system. It's simplicity itself for individual people to homebrew, however. And as someone who owns that book, no - no that is not what it said. Allow me to fetch my copy and recheck the wording directly. . .. ... .. .
Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting Reborn states that you can represent a character of mixed ancestry by using one of the game's existing species stat blocks as is, or by exchanging one or two traits from one parent's species into the species of the other parent. It then offers light guidance and words of caution that some species traits are more powerful/impactful than others and recommends swapping "narrative" traits for other "narrative" traits and combast-focused traits for other combat-focused traits. It also reminds players that the GM needs to approve any such swapping. The book states verbatim: "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."
House rule. Homebrew. Tweak and course-correct as you go. TDCSR handles the matter very well, but Wizards cannot handle it in the same manner because Wizards fundamentally and by definition cannot create 'house rules'. Anything Wizards releases has to either be a narrative guidance blurb, such as the sidebar in the Origins playtest document, or a formal rules system.
There are currently close to if not over a hundred different Official Species in R5e. None of them were built or designed in such a way as to allow for easy, intuitive trading of species traits. How do you do a half-aarakocra, half-anything-else? Do you get the Aarakocra's flight, which is damn near its only species trait? If you don't get flight, how are you half-birbman? How do you do a half-locathah? Is the resulting hybrid stuck with Limited Amphibiousness or not? How do you do a half-centaur? How do you do a half-warforged? How do you do a character with three or more significant ancestries, such as the child of a tiefling and a genasi of elven descent?
Wizards trying to make formal, one-size-fits-all rules for how to create any possible combination of bloodlines would be untenable. Any formal rules Wizards makes would be utterly inadequate, and they know it. If you like reflecting your character's mixed ancestry mechanically, go for it. Sorry Ophidimancer, I like mechanically reflecting mixed ancestry too. I think it makes characters more interesting and dynamic and gives them room to be more of the person they were born as. But I'm also not going to force other people to do so if they prefer not to, and I'm not going to ask Wizards to give me a one-size-fits-none rule that won't accomplish what anyone wants it to do anyways.
Tal'Dorei Reborn handled this exactly the way it should be handled - your mixed-ancestry character's traits are between you and your GM. Talk to the person running your game and ask if you can do some light homebrew in support of your character's story. If your GM is an anti-homebrew hardass, then you have the option of a narrative-only mixed-ancestry character, a'la the Origins document, or playing a different concept and saving your mixed-ancestry character for a different game.
I see people have brought up bio-essentialism again, and this is why I argue that it is a fantasy game and not an analogue for the real world.
The argument has never been about D&D being an analog for the real world. The argument is that depicting people in certain ways can be hurtful to the readers and players. Your point is null.
Invisibilizing mixed ancestry as being either one or the other is offensive to actual people of mixed ancestry, if you want to go that way.
This is not what's happening. You're hyper focusing on the special abilities of the race and ignoring the Background and Feat and the simple fact of the lore detail. And are you speaking from experience or from having talked to people, or are you just hypothesizing?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
No she doesn't.
The R5e half-elf and half-orc aren't going away. Those books aren't dying. They mey get the Volo's Guide/Tome of Foes treatment in 2024, but even if they do people with the old versions can still use them. Jeremy Crawford is not going to invade your friend's home and hold her at gunpoint until she changes her character to a 1DD half-elf. If she wants to use the new stuff, she can. If she wants to keep using the still-totally-available old stuff, she can. Hell, the Origins document explicitly made allowances for older D&D content that still had fixed species bonuses, your friend can keep her half-elf stat block and simply redesign her background if she cares to.
I have a Mammon tiefling and a Glasya tiefling both built using the old Tome of Foes tiffle variations, and y'know what? I've never once received a message from DDB threatening action against my account if I don't desist in the use of Legacy content this instant. Hell, I still have old characters built using UA options from the days of yore when DDB did UA, disappeared content nobody can use anymore without homebrewing it themselves or cloning it from someone who has the old sheets. I still have copies of the Bilgewater subclasses and occasionally bust them out for specific one-shots. I have the original Blood Hunter on a few older characters. Nobody has ever once told me I need to go through and update all those sheets to the newst content or Action Will Be Taken.
If your friend wants to keep her current half-elf character the way she is? Literally nothing is stopping her. Same with half-orcs. Same with anything from the R5e core books. Y'all wanna keep using that stuff? Nobody will say you nay. It's your character and your game, do whatever you want. Just don't try and force this stuff into our games, or into everybody's games.
Please do not contact or message me.
I'd like to float the idea that maybe nobody here is going to get the definitive final blow. There won't be any single post that everyone can look at and say, "ah, yes. The argument is over."
Or rather, if there is, it won't be for the quality of the argument therein, it'll be because it's a mod having to shut things down for getting too heated.
The person who got the last comment before that happens isn't the winner.
Then why come up with the UA version of mixed races? If everything stays the same?
Now what if we want a half-human half-halfing? No rules for that. Now we have to use the UA rules. Which I don't like.
I stated above why I don't like the rule stated in the UA. I would change it by the time One D&D is done. Mainly because I don't like the idea of it only being traits from one parents race.
Umm ... this is called the One Drop Rule and it is awful, racist, and is definitely not a good supporting argument for you to make.
I mean you basically said, "I know you said something is racist but have you considered [something even more racist]?"
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
ummm I am making it to support why I don't like the new set up. That is why I am bringing it up. I feel this is what the UA rule does.
Tell me why you think what I am saying is wrong. I do not like the new UA for children of different humanoid kinds as it just seems that it is really your just X race and the other race is just for flavor. The other race isn't important to you, it is just to spice up your lore. It doesn't really count.
I happen to think it both counts and both are important and be more than cosmetic changes.
The Origins blurb for mixed species is there because people want to play mixed-species characters and have been doing it the way they laid out in that document for most of the entire run of 5e. Crawford said so himself - that wasn't a rule Wizards invented, it's just them acknowledging what players already do in many cases.
Half-human, half-halfling? Start human, set your size to Small, use your background feat for Lucky. Boom. Done. Shortstack human with limited halfling luck.
Not all combinations are going to be as easy of course, but Wizards cannot invent a "Half [X], half [Y]" stat block for every conceivable combination of species. Especially once you get past the idea that only pureblooded species can intermingle and demanding mechanical support for Heinz 57 Allspice bloodlines. At some point, the onus shifts from Wizards to the player wanting to mingle four or more bloodlines. At some point, the only feasible answer is going to be "ask your DM and break out the homebrew."
Please do not contact or message me.
Ok.
I cannot say this is wrong, you like what you like.
That's a very limited view that basically boils everything about one's heritage down to just one's special features and ignores the other big factors of character creation like the Background and the Feat.
Lore is more than just cosmetic. Background is more than just cosmetic. Level 1 Feats are more than just cosmetic.
All of those are significant aspects of character creation and work to portray the essence of a character, including a detail like multiracial heritage.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I don't know if it's been suggested yet, but maybe also allowing a hybrid character to count as both for stuff that cares about their race, like feats, magic items, and so on, might be something to consider as well?
Maybe a half-elf in this version would just be able to shrug off the claw attack of a ghoul. Maybe a half-dwarf can use the Axe of the Dwarvish Lords without being affected by its curse. Circumstantial but flavourful stuff like that.
EDIT: To expand on this idea, I have the following in mind for more concrete rules surrounding this:-
You're right. Lore is more than cosmetic that is why the UA rule for mixed races are bad. They make that just cosmetic. It literally says If you’d like to play the child of such a wondrous pairing, choose two Race options that are Humanoid to represent your parents. Then determine which of those Race options provides your game traits: Size, Speed, and special traits. You can then mix and match visual characteristics—color, ear shape, and the like—of the two options. For example, if your character has a halfling and a gnome parent, you might choose Halfling for your game traits and then decide that your character has the pointed ears that are characteristic of a gnome
That makes it cosmetic. The part where you just mix and match visual characteristic. Again, I would change it to get a trait from each parent's race so you get at least one from each. So that one of your parents are not just visual characteristics.
I have no problem with backgrounds and feats. You're right about that. That adds things. Though you can have two people with the same feats and backgrounds be different people.
No, they make multiracial heritage into a lore detail and then encourage you to incorporate it into their Background and Feat choices. It's not just cosmetic.
I find this to be somewhat obsessed with having to mechanize one's hereditary bloodline history rather than treating a character's background as a holistic mix of heredity and culture and training. That obsession with specifically having to portray how one's blood affects one's capabilities is what I find to be bioessentialist and kind of creepy.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Then why don't we get rid of races all together. No tremor sense for dwarfs, no breath weapons for Dragonborn. It should all be backgrounds and feats.
Why humans should be able to get breath weapons.
Until that time that we get rid of races and racial traits we have to deal with that.
This is an exaggerated response to what I have said but at the same time not as ridiculous as you're trying to make it sound. Things like that are done in other games and they work out just fine, I'm just pretty sure the D&D community would not receive that very well.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Again, I brought up what I think. If you just want me to say I am wrong and you're right then fine I will do that,.
I have said how I would change it. Is there anything wrong with what I said. Again it was in the Critical Role Taldori Reborn book.
You choose one or two traits from one parent and replace it with the other.
So a human/halfling can have versatile or lucky
Obviously all of this could have been avoided if all characters were humans from the get-go and remained that way, and of course your own world can be that way if you so choose.
I see people have brought up bio-essentialism again, and this is why I argue that it is a fantasy game and not an analogue for the real world.
In the real world (so far) we have humans and animals that aren't humans. We have no other real humanoid species to compare ourselves to. If one of the other proto-humanoid species (like Neanderthal) had survived till today as distinct and separate, it is totally possible that they would, it some way, have a feature that is inferior or superior to homo-sapiens-sapiens.
Let's be 100% clear. My personal position is that all humans (homo-sapiens-sapiens) are EQUAL. None of us are biologically predisposed to being inferior or superior, so anyone who wants to call me racist is wrong. Humans are equal, period.
But I am capable of comprehending a reality (whether fanatical or not) where their could be a humanoid species that is some how inferior or superior, so we can have that in a fantasy world without the practitioner of the game being racist IRL.
I would also argue to those who continue to decry "Bio-essentialism Bad!" that we currently have in the game multiple humanoid races that literally have different biological benefits because of their race.
ALL Elves have darkvision because they are elves. Bio-essentialism. So if you want to get rid of Bio-E you're going to need a game where every playable race starts off with the exact same biological base, and then you pick and choose whatever characteristics you want. Everyone is the same.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
That would be outlandishly difficult for Wizards to do, given that they would have to come up with a formal system for labelling traits as "Swappable" or "Unswappable" and effectively build a point-buy species builder save without the points or any of the fluidity of such a system. It's simplicity itself for individual people to homebrew, however. And as someone who owns that book, no - no that is not what it said. Allow me to fetch my copy and recheck the wording directly.
.
..
...
..
.
Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting Reborn states that you can represent a character of mixed ancestry by using one of the game's existing species stat blocks as is, or by exchanging one or two traits from one parent's species into the species of the other parent. It then offers light guidance and words of caution that some species traits are more powerful/impactful than others and recommends swapping "narrative" traits for other "narrative" traits and combast-focused traits for other combat-focused traits. It also reminds players that the GM needs to approve any such swapping. The book states verbatim: "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."
House rule. Homebrew. Tweak and course-correct as you go. TDCSR handles the matter very well, but Wizards cannot handle it in the same manner because Wizards fundamentally and by definition cannot create 'house rules'. Anything Wizards releases has to either be a narrative guidance blurb, such as the sidebar in the Origins playtest document, or a formal rules system.
There are currently close to if not over a hundred different Official Species in R5e. None of them were built or designed in such a way as to allow for easy, intuitive trading of species traits. How do you do a half-aarakocra, half-anything-else? Do you get the Aarakocra's flight, which is damn near its only species trait? If you don't get flight, how are you half-birbman? How do you do a half-locathah? Is the resulting hybrid stuck with Limited Amphibiousness or not? How do you do a half-centaur? How do you do a half-warforged? How do you do a character with three or more significant ancestries, such as the child of a tiefling and a genasi of elven descent?
Wizards trying to make formal, one-size-fits-all rules for how to create any possible combination of bloodlines would be untenable. Any formal rules Wizards makes would be utterly inadequate, and they know it. If you like reflecting your character's mixed ancestry mechanically, go for it. Sorry Ophidimancer, I like mechanically reflecting mixed ancestry too. I think it makes characters more interesting and dynamic and gives them room to be more of the person they were born as. But I'm also not going to force other people to do so if they prefer not to, and I'm not going to ask Wizards to give me a one-size-fits-none rule that won't accomplish what anyone wants it to do anyways.
Tal'Dorei Reborn handled this exactly the way it should be handled - your mixed-ancestry character's traits are between you and your GM. Talk to the person running your game and ask if you can do some light homebrew in support of your character's story. If your GM is an anti-homebrew hardass, then you have the option of a narrative-only mixed-ancestry character, a'la the Origins document, or playing a different concept and saving your mixed-ancestry character for a different game.
Please do not contact or message me.
The argument has never been about D&D being an analog for the real world. The argument is that depicting people in certain ways can be hurtful to the readers and players. Your point is null.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Invisibilizing mixed ancestry as being either one or the other is offensive to actual people of mixed ancestry, if you want to go that way.
This is not what's happening. You're hyper focusing on the special abilities of the race and ignoring the Background and Feat and the simple fact of the lore detail. And are you speaking from experience or from having talked to people, or are you just hypothesizing?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
So, if I want to play a half-elf, I choose an elf, and then its entire background is "has a human parent", huh?
I'd say that is more racist than an alternative.