Pandering to people who are "offended" and being inclusive aren't the same things and the former is actually problematic to do, since there are people continuously looking to be offended by literally anything, no matter how little of an issue it actually is, there is a risk of making them claim that they are "justified" in being offended.
This is very belittling and it is invalidating to those who have said that this language is harmful. Don't do that. It also goes explicitly against what moderation has instructed us to do.
I don't want to get into legitimate arguments over what should or should not be questionable and not in the right state of mind personally, so I'm just deleting my comments since I am saying these things out of concern and not to necessarily offend or insult everybody. I do think there is legitimate questions around the word "race", when WotC continues to actually use words that were actually designed to be derogatory from their conception. It's very double standards.
That is another deflection technique that people use when they don't want to admit the real reason they oppose something. It is called "What about-ism", others have already mentioned that not fixing everything is not a valid argument to not fix something. Let's face it you don't actually care about the use of the word Barbarian as you yourself admitted no one cares because it is far remove from its ancient Greek origins that they don't matter. (Language and culture changes, it always has and it always will). You are once again simply deflecting from the real reason you oppose these changes, please state them openly if you have a real disagreement about the use of "race" in this context.
I have literally no idea what you're talking about, if you're asking if I think the term Barbarian should stop being used then the answer to that is obviously yes, it should stop being used. If the goal is to actually clean-up the game of terms that could be hurtful or offensive then Barbarian is in my opinion actually a bigger issue than race. Barbarian has always been nothing but a racist slur to begin with and the meaning/definition of the word never really changed, just the people it was a slur against no longer exist.
That is another deflection technique that people use when they don't want to admit the real reason they oppose something. It is called "What about-ism", others have already mentioned that not fixing everything is not a valid argument to not fix something. Let's face it you don't actually care about the use of the word Barbarian as you yourself admitted no one cares because it is far remove from its ancient Greek origins that they don't matter. (Language and culture changes, it always has and it always will). You are once again simply deflecting from the real reason you oppose these changes, please state them openly if you have a real disagreement about the use of "race" in this context.
Raising other topics is not always a what about-ism. I won't comment on the particular thread previously quoted, because I do not know the poster's true intentions, but some posters may just be trying to use this change as a means of raising other concerns that need to be addressed. It's not always a deflection, it may be an attempt at a 'yes, and' statement to get the ball rolling on additional changes.
I too have a modest preference for using "Ancestry" in preference to "Species," for a few reasons:
1) "Ancestry" feels less "scientific," and therefore appropriate to a fantasy setting. It's a minor gripe but it irks me. 2) "Ancestry" is less defined, so it feels like there is the option of a DM deciding whether the various fantasy peoples are in fact different species, subspecies of the same species ("Shadowrun" did this, complete with latin pseudoscientific names for elves, dwarves, orks, ogres and trolls), or some mix of the two. For example, a DM could decide that Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Goblins, Halflings, Orcs and Tieflings were all just subspecies, but Dragonborn (for example) were not. 3) "Ancestry" creates a nice way of labeling "Ancestral Feats" - ways to allow a character to claim descent from one of the other peoples.
4) "Ancestry" is a way of acknowledging that some of the characteristics obtained from this part of character creation are socially derived, not biologically (this is a big one for me).
In closing, I'm glad "Race" has gone by the wayside, but I'm not 100% sure "Species" was the right pick for the reasons above.
I too have a modest preference for using "Ancestry" in preference to "Species," for a few reasons:
1) "Ancestry" feels less "scientific," and therefore appropriate to a fantasy setting. It's a minor gripe but it irks me. 2) "Ancestry" is less defined, so it feels like there is the option of a DM deciding whether the various fantasy peoples are in fact different species, subspecies of the same species ("Shadowrun" did this, complete with latin pseudoscientific names for elves, dwarves, orks, ogres and trolls), or some mix of the two. For example, a DM could decide that Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Goblins, Halflings, Orcs and Tieflings were all just subspecies, but Dragonborn (for example) were not. 3) "Ancestry" creates a nice way of labeling "Ancestral Feats" - ways to allow a character to claim descent from one of the other peoples.
4) "Ancestry" is a way of acknowledging that some of the characteristics obtained from this part of character creation are socially derived, not biologically (this is a big one for me).
In closing, I'm glad "Race" has gone by the wayside, but I'm not 100% sure "Species" was the right pick for the reasons above.
point 4 is also quiet relevant in choices which aren't necessarily biological to begin with, like a warforged.
4) "Ancestry" is a way of acknowledging that some of the characteristics obtained from this part of character creation are socially derived, not biologically (this is a big one for me).
point 4 is also quiet relevant in choices which aren't necessarily biological to begin with, like a warforged.
It would be valuable if Wizards weren't already moving away from writing species traits that are socially derived. But they are.
Everything a Warforged gets from what was previously / is currently called "racial traits" is a biological trait. A Warforged has these traits from the moment they're made. They don't learn them from their culture, because in Eberron they don't really have a culture. They haven't had time to develop one. There are dwarves alive who were born before the first Warforged existed. So Warforged is a poor example.
A better example would be the old Dwarf trait called Tool Proficiency, which gave dwarf characters proficiency with culturally significant artisan's tools to reflect the crafting culture of the dwarves. The Dwarf in the first playtest (which has yet to be changed) doesn't have that feature. It has Forge Wise, which does exactly the same thing, but frames it as the god of dwarves having created them with certain inherent knowledge, rather than as the dwarves teaching each other. In other words, it used to be a social trait and now it's a biological one. More commonly, such traits are simply being removed, but dwarves get to be the exception I guess.
Whatever term WotC is going to use in place of 'Species' if the majority of people don't like it, it's probably not going to be 'Ancestry', because that's what Paizo adopted as their legally distinct alternative to 'race' when they moved away from content based explicitly on the d20 system.
Honestly, ancestry not only feels like it makes more sense but allows for more variation. Like, I dunno, you could have two groups of, say, dwarves that, while genetically identical, because of where they grew up have at least some different traits. Like you could have 'New York Dwarf' and 'Boston Dwarf' and they'd be identical aside from the adventure module they come from and a NYD would have a small +1 bonus against charge attacks and a +1 to Hot dog cooking while a Boston Dwarf would get a +1 bonus for resisting intoxication and a +1 to Baked Bean cooking. One could come from the 'Sewers of New York' adventure module and the other from the 'Princes of the Baseball Diamond' adventure module.
I'm probably being really stupid and sleep deprived with this post right now; so feel free to ignore it for stupid.
I mean, really, the best option here is to have a load of mechanical options for characters and link nothing to if your character is a dwarf, an elf or a tabaxi.
That I imagine is eventually where the game will get (edition 7 or 8 maybe). Create your own adventurer, picking one of a long list of traits including luck (reroll 1's) or an innate ability to spells, or the ability to fly or breathe fire.
Players then get to make whatever character they want and have complete flexibility.
I mean, really, the best option here is to have a load of mechanical options for characters and link nothing to if your character is a dwarf, an elf or a tabaxi.
That I imagine is eventually where the game will get (edition 7 or 8 maybe). Create your own adventurer, picking one of a long list of traits including luck (reroll 1's) or an innate ability to spells, or the ability to fly or breathe fire.
Players then get to make whatever character they want and have complete flexibility.
Wow I hate it.
At that point it's just humans in hats. The diversity of different species is what makes them interesting. The idea of species just getting turned into a generic grab-bag of abilities is just so uninspired and bland.
I mean, really, the best option here is to have a load of mechanical options for characters and link nothing to if your character is a dwarf, an elf or a tabaxi.
That I imagine is eventually where the game will get (edition 7 or 8 maybe). Create your own adventurer, picking one of a long list of traits including luck (reroll 1's) or an innate ability to spells, or the ability to fly or breathe fire.
Players then get to make whatever character they want and have complete flexibility.
That would be the best, yes.
I think the only blocker is re-working the pile of legacy racial abilities into, for lack of a better phrase, feat-sized and half-feat-sized traits. They got about halfway there in Xanathar's.
I mean, really, the best option here is to have a load of mechanical options for characters and link nothing to if your character is a dwarf, an elf or a tabaxi.
That I imagine is eventually where the game will get (edition 7 or 8 maybe). Create your own adventurer, picking one of a long list of traits including luck (reroll 1's) or an innate ability to spells, or the ability to fly or breathe fire.
Players then get to make whatever character they want and have complete flexibility.
Wow I hate it.
At that point it's just humans in hats. The diversity of different species is what makes them interesting. The idea of species just getting turned into a generic grab-bag of abilities is just so uninspired and bland.
Agreed. That idea feels entirely stupid and empty and robs it of any meaning.
I mean, really, the best option here is to have a load of mechanical options for characters and link nothing to if your character is a dwarf, an elf or a tabaxi.
That I imagine is eventually where the game will get (edition 7 or 8 maybe). Create your own adventurer, picking one of a long list of traits including luck (reroll 1's) or an innate ability to spells, or the ability to fly or breathe fire.
Players then get to make whatever character they want and have complete flexibility.
Wow I hate it.
At that point it's just humans in hats. The diversity of different species is what makes them interesting. The idea of species just getting turned into a generic grab-bag of abilities is just so uninspired and bland.
Agreed. That idea feels entirely stupid and empty and robs it of any meaning.
As opposed to a player being able to mechanically do it anyway, I have had players use Tabaxi rules for there Halfling, or Dwarf rules for an elf. Your species is still diverse, you are still diverse, but you just have the flexiability to mechanically put all the pieces together to make the character you want and then roleplay it as you want. It is not "Humans in hats" because you will still get people being Elves, Dwarfs etc.
People felt the same when it was suggested Species Traits would just become floating, that is now going to be the new way of building a character in the 5.5e, so, I can see in 20 years time the full flexiability of character generation becoming take from column A, then from column B, then from C and that becomes your species.
I mean, really, the best option here is to have a load of mechanical options for characters and link nothing to if your character is a dwarf, an elf or a tabaxi.
That I imagine is eventually where the game will get (edition 7 or 8 maybe). Create your own adventurer, picking one of a long list of traits including luck (reroll 1's) or an innate ability to spells, or the ability to fly or breathe fire.
Players then get to make whatever character they want and have complete flexibility.
Wow I hate it.
At that point it's just humans in hats. The diversity of different species is what makes them interesting. The idea of species just getting turned into a generic grab-bag of abilities is just so uninspired and bland.
Agreed. That idea feels entirely stupid and empty and robs it of any meaning.
As opposed to a player being able to mechanically do it anyway, I have had players use Tabaxi rules for there Halfling, or Dwarf rules for an elf. Your species is still diverse, you are still diverse, but you just have the flexiability to mechanically put all the pieces together to make the character you want and then roleplay it as you want. It is not "Humans in hats" because you will still get people being Elves, Dwarfs etc.
People felt the same when it was suggested Species Traits would just become floating, that is now going to be the new way of building a character in the 5.5e, so, I can see in 20 years time the full flexiability of character generation becoming take from column A, then from column B, then from C and that becomes your species.
I can take the mechanics for a wizard and call them a barbarian. That doesn't make them a barbarian. That makes them a wizard with a barbarian paint job. You take tabaxi rules for a halfling you don't have a halfling, you have a tabaxi flavored as a halfling. You can't just take an aarakocra, flavor it as a tortle, and expect everyone to be fine with it outside of a Mario-based adventure. If that's something your particular table is fine with that's one thing; but that is not universal and would almost certainly result in the whole concept of species losing any sort of meaning beyond basic flavor text. Not to mention that it's insanely ripe for mechanical abuse. While I am of the opinion that we shouldn't let fear of min-maxers drive us away from changes and improvements, there is a massive difference between that and actively handing them a system that may as well have a 'To Minmaxers, from WotC, Merry Christmas' tag on it. What 1DD is doing with species is already bad enough in terms of robbing them of uniqueness and identity. This system would almost certainly result in the vast majority of players who were interested in D&D for the variety of races just up and leaving due to lack of interest. People LIKE being a dwarf, or a kobold, or whatever else there is and all the uniqueness, both good and bad, that comes with it. They LIKE that their dragonborn has a breath weapon because it's something that makes them feel distinctive and unique. Something special to THEM! If every halfling, human, centaur, and Gith could fart out a thunder breath it takes away that uniqueness and distinctiveness and robs being a dragonborn of meaning.
I can take the mechanics for a wizard and call them a barbarian. That doesn't make them a barbarian. That makes them a wizard with a barbarian paint job.
I disagree, but mostly because "barbarian" can mean many things, but also because mechanics only have flavors because we decide they have flavors. To only proscribe one flavor to mechanics because that's what you're used to is pretty limited and uncreative. I can absolutely make a barbarian wizard like a shamanistic caster of spells. Would be a barbarian and a wizard.
You take tabaxi rules for a halfling you don't have a halfling, you have a tabaxi flavored as a halfling.
"Cousin Tibbets has always been fast on his feet and is always climbing trees. He might as well be a cat." There, done. Perfectly fine as a halfling.
Not to mention that it's insanely ripe for mechanical abuse. While I am of the opinion that we shouldn't let fear of min-maxers drive us away from changes and improvements, there is a massive difference between that and actively handing them a system that may as well have a 'To Minmaxers, from WotC, Merry Christmas' tag on it.
I've heard this kind of slippery slope, sky is falling kind of complaint for a lot of the changes and it honestly hasn't panned out at all.
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!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have literally no idea what you're talking about, if you're asking if I think the term Barbarian should stop being used then the answer to that is obviously yes, it should stop being used. If the goal is to actually clean-up the game of terms that could be hurtful or offensive then Barbarian is in my opinion actually a bigger issue than race. Barbarian has always been nothing but a racist slur to begin with and the meaning/definition of the word never really changed, just the people it was a slur against no longer exist.
Raising other topics is not always a what about-ism. I won't comment on the particular thread previously quoted, because I do not know the poster's true intentions, but some posters may just be trying to use this change as a means of raising other concerns that need to be addressed. It's not always a deflection, it may be an attempt at a 'yes, and' statement to get the ball rolling on additional changes.
I too have a modest preference for using "Ancestry" in preference to "Species," for a few reasons:
1) "Ancestry" feels less "scientific," and therefore appropriate to a fantasy setting. It's a minor gripe but it irks me.
2) "Ancestry" is less defined, so it feels like there is the option of a DM deciding whether the various fantasy peoples are in fact different species, subspecies of the same species ("Shadowrun" did this, complete with latin pseudoscientific names for elves, dwarves, orks, ogres and trolls), or some mix of the two. For example, a DM could decide that Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Goblins, Halflings, Orcs and Tieflings were all just subspecies, but Dragonborn (for example) were not.
3) "Ancestry" creates a nice way of labeling "Ancestral Feats" - ways to allow a character to claim descent from one of the other peoples.
4) "Ancestry" is a way of acknowledging that some of the characteristics obtained from this part of character creation are socially derived, not biologically (this is a big one for me).
In closing, I'm glad "Race" has gone by the wayside, but I'm not 100% sure "Species" was the right pick for the reasons above.
point 4 is also quiet relevant in choices which aren't necessarily biological to begin with, like a warforged.
It would be valuable if Wizards weren't already moving away from writing species traits that are socially derived. But they are.
Everything a Warforged gets from what was previously / is currently called "racial traits" is a biological trait. A Warforged has these traits from the moment they're made. They don't learn them from their culture, because in Eberron they don't really have a culture. They haven't had time to develop one. There are dwarves alive who were born before the first Warforged existed. So Warforged is a poor example.
A better example would be the old Dwarf trait called Tool Proficiency, which gave dwarf characters proficiency with culturally significant artisan's tools to reflect the crafting culture of the dwarves. The Dwarf in the first playtest (which has yet to be changed) doesn't have that feature. It has Forge Wise, which does exactly the same thing, but frames it as the god of dwarves having created them with certain inherent knowledge, rather than as the dwarves teaching each other. In other words, it used to be a social trait and now it's a biological one. More commonly, such traits are simply being removed, but dwarves get to be the exception I guess.
I sugest making puns, this being an issue is a joke either way, lightening the mood never hurts
Not a fan. Species impies SciFi, [REDACTED]
Today I learnt that the 1300s is apparently sci fi....
Weird to see the advanced sci fi weapon called the rapier in DnD all the time as well.
Let's not beat about the bush:
Whatever term WotC is going to use in place of 'Species' if the majority of people don't like it, it's probably not going to be 'Ancestry', because that's what Paizo adopted as their legally distinct alternative to 'race' when they moved away from content based explicitly on the d20 system.
Yeah. It's a shame Paizo beat WOTC to it, because that's an almost perfect term. "Lineage" or "origin" might work.
Honestly, ancestry not only feels like it makes more sense but allows for more variation. Like, I dunno, you could have two groups of, say, dwarves that, while genetically identical, because of where they grew up have at least some different traits. Like you could have 'New York Dwarf' and 'Boston Dwarf' and they'd be identical aside from the adventure module they come from and a NYD would have a small +1 bonus against charge attacks and a +1 to Hot dog cooking while a Boston Dwarf would get a +1 bonus for resisting intoxication and a +1 to Baked Bean cooking. One could come from the 'Sewers of New York' adventure module and the other from the 'Princes of the Baseball Diamond' adventure module.
I'm probably being really stupid and sleep deprived with this post right now; so feel free to ignore it for stupid.
Excuse me, I think you mean New York Dwarf and Boston Dwahf.
I mean, really, the best option here is to have a load of mechanical options for characters and link nothing to if your character is a dwarf, an elf or a tabaxi.
That I imagine is eventually where the game will get (edition 7 or 8 maybe). Create your own adventurer, picking one of a long list of traits including luck (reroll 1's) or an innate ability to spells, or the ability to fly or breathe fire.
Players then get to make whatever character they want and have complete flexibility.
Wow I hate it.
At that point it's just humans in hats. The diversity of different species is what makes them interesting. The idea of species just getting turned into a generic grab-bag of abilities is just so uninspired and bland.
That would be the best, yes.
I think the only blocker is re-working the pile of legacy racial abilities into, for lack of a better phrase, feat-sized and half-feat-sized traits. They got about halfway there in Xanathar's.
Agreed. That idea feels entirely stupid and empty and robs it of any meaning.
I can live with species but I do think lineage or ancestry sound better for the game.
As opposed to a player being able to mechanically do it anyway, I have had players use Tabaxi rules for there Halfling, or Dwarf rules for an elf. Your species is still diverse, you are still diverse, but you just have the flexiability to mechanically put all the pieces together to make the character you want and then roleplay it as you want. It is not "Humans in hats" because you will still get people being Elves, Dwarfs etc.
People felt the same when it was suggested Species Traits would just become floating, that is now going to be the new way of building a character in the 5.5e, so, I can see in 20 years time the full flexiability of character generation becoming take from column A, then from column B, then from C and that becomes your species.
I can take the mechanics for a wizard and call them a barbarian. That doesn't make them a barbarian. That makes them a wizard with a barbarian paint job. You take tabaxi rules for a halfling you don't have a halfling, you have a tabaxi flavored as a halfling. You can't just take an aarakocra, flavor it as a tortle, and expect everyone to be fine with it outside of a Mario-based adventure. If that's something your particular table is fine with that's one thing; but that is not universal and would almost certainly result in the whole concept of species losing any sort of meaning beyond basic flavor text. Not to mention that it's insanely ripe for mechanical abuse. While I am of the opinion that we shouldn't let fear of min-maxers drive us away from changes and improvements, there is a massive difference between that and actively handing them a system that may as well have a 'To Minmaxers, from WotC, Merry Christmas' tag on it. What 1DD is doing with species is already bad enough in terms of robbing them of uniqueness and identity. This system would almost certainly result in the vast majority of players who were interested in D&D for the variety of races just up and leaving due to lack of interest. People LIKE being a dwarf, or a kobold, or whatever else there is and all the uniqueness, both good and bad, that comes with it. They LIKE that their dragonborn has a breath weapon because it's something that makes them feel distinctive and unique. Something special to THEM! If every halfling, human, centaur, and Gith could fart out a thunder breath it takes away that uniqueness and distinctiveness and robs being a dragonborn of meaning.
I disagree, but mostly because "barbarian" can mean many things, but also because mechanics only have flavors because we decide they have flavors. To only proscribe one flavor to mechanics because that's what you're used to is pretty limited and uncreative. I can absolutely make a barbarian wizard like a shamanistic caster of spells. Would be a barbarian and a wizard.
"Cousin Tibbets has always been fast on his feet and is always climbing trees. He might as well be a cat." There, done. Perfectly fine as a halfling.
I've heard this kind of slippery slope, sky is falling kind of complaint for a lot of the changes and it honestly hasn't panned out at all.
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!