I dont think they had to. Everything is the same age, and the same speed, and can be the same size. You can pick your feat and stats from background. There's not much left to set something aside from something else other than whatever backstory you choose to give your character. Mechanically, they are mostly the same.
Pretty sure we still have long-live races, they just made human standard the minimum. And if you review the UA Gnomes and Halflings are Small only, most of the others are Medium only. And they certainly have not gotten rid of racial/species features. So no, they aren't standardizing everything to a single template, that is an objectively incorrect assertion.
All of this is correct. Gnomes, for example, are small only (as said) and live to 425 years old. Dragonborn and Elves are both exclusively medium. Humans can be either small or medium - but that is so every human, including those with dwarfism, are able to play as their own human self.
Speed has all been standardized - but Wizards did that for basic gameplay reasons. For those of us who follow overland travel rules, a player with even a slightly lesser speed than everyone else is a nightmare, hindering the entire party. Wizards does not really want to burden high-exploration parties just for some narrative sensibilities - that is exactly the kind of change which makes a lot of sense for the update.
I have seen the “everyone in 2024 is the same, Wizards is ruining the game!” argument a lot - first from someone with a lot of alternate accounts banned for racism (which, to be clear, I am not accusing anyone of here of racism - just providing the context of where this particular argument seemed to first enter the DDB forums), and now from others. Too many people, all using the same basic language, for there not to be a common source. I expect someone has been pushing this narrative on YouTube or some other site, and it has bled through to folks who are trusting this source/trusting what they have seen others post, rather than actually looking at the primary document that is the UA material.
If there's any narrative being pushed somewhere, I am not aware of it. I'll go back and look more closely, but it's been looking a lot more homogonized. It's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just a thing I don't much care for. Races are much less interesting than they used to be. Unified speed for example just breaks my immersion a bit. A halfling walking as fast as a goliath for example makes me roll my eyes.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
If there's any narrative being pushed somewhere, I am not aware of it. I'll go back and look more closely, but it's been looking a lot more homogonized. It's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just a thing I don't much care for. Races are much less interesting than they used to be. Unified speed for example just breaks my immersion a bit. A halfling walking as fast as a goliath for example makes me roll my eyes.
The Fellowship having to stop every 100 ft so Gimli and the Hobbits could catch up would make me roll my eyes. Since they can't possibly make us both happy, I'll settle for them making me happy 😏
As for races being less interesting... is movement speed of all things really your barometer for that? Do none of the many, many other diverging features matter?
My gaming group won't miss slower speeds either - the only slow species anyone typically used was dwarves, and that's largely due to them not being slowed down by heavy armor.
If there's any narrative being pushed somewhere, I am not aware of it. I'll go back and look more closely, but it's been looking a lot more homogonized. It's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just a thing I don't much care for. Races are much less interesting than they used to be. Unified speed for example just breaks my immersion a bit. A halfling walking as fast as a goliath for example makes me roll my eyes.
You must really hate halfling monks 😂
Edit: I did find odd in UA1 that some species like dwarf were combined into one, no Hill or Mountain. Yet others like Gnome had separate lineages for forest and rock. i guess all Mountain dwarf gave you was two +2’s (now everyone is +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1) and medium armor and shields. One trait is no longer needed and the other too culturally specific? I guess I answered my own question.
Edit: I did find odd in UA1 that some species like dwarf were combined into one, no Hill or Mountain. Yet others like Gnome had separate lineages for forest and rock. i guess all Mountain dwarf gave you was two +2’s (now everyone is +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1) and medium armor and shields. One trait is no longer needed and the other too culturally specific? I guess I answered my own question.
The differences between Hill and Mountain are cultural rather than physiological, and easily replicated using background (specifically the background feat.) You want your Mountain Dwarf that trained with armor regardless of class, that's the Lightly Armored feat and then put your ASIs towards Con and Str. You want your Hill Dwarf that is wiser and more generally hardy, that's Tough feat and put your ASIs towards Con and Wis.
If there's any narrative being pushed somewhere, I am not aware of it. I'll go back and look more closely, but it's been looking a lot more homogonized. It's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just a thing I don't much care for. Races are much less interesting than they used to be. Unified speed for example just breaks my immersion a bit. A halfling walking as fast as a goliath for example makes me roll my eyes.
Giving more customization options isnt homogenization, its just less of the Game world controlling your character's concept. They actually have less homogenization with the new char creation rules. Especially since you can use old races, or the new rules.
Edit: I did find odd in UA1 that some species like dwarf were combined into one, no Hill or Mountain. Yet others like Gnome had separate lineages for forest and rock. i guess all Mountain dwarf gave you was two +2’s (now everyone is +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1) and medium armor and shields. One trait is no longer needed and the other too culturally specific? I guess I answered my own question.
The differences between Hill and Mountain are cultural rather than physiological, and easily replicated using background (specifically the background feat.) You want your Mountain Dwarf that trained with armor regardless of class, that's the Lightly Armored feat and then put your ASIs towards Con and Str. You want your Hill Dwarf that is wiser and more generally hardy, that's Tough feat and put your ASIs towards Con and Wis.
True. The extra 1hp per level that the hill dwarf had is now part of the dwarf in UA1 so all dwarves have it now. So hardier is cultural, hill dwarves had it while Mountain didn’t (but now all do)? But a forest gnome casting speak with animals and rock gnomes prestidigitation and tinkering isn’t?
Sorry, not trying to start a debate and I understand how weapon and armor training is a cultural thing. But being hardier doesn’t seem cultural so Hill dwarves seem like they could have had a separate lineage and mountain could have had something added. Or Gnomes shouldn’t, and maybe other species, shouldn’t have had lineages?
In the UA they standardized dwarves because there was hardly anything to choose from between the two in the first place, and with them moving armor and weapon profs out of race traits, the easiest thing to do there was just consolidate. The magic end of gnome stuff is more acceptable as a subspecies thing since magic naturally lacks a good analog to reality, and the tinkering hung around mostly because of tradition. Plus they more thoroughly tied the tinkering to magic rather than just making it "rock gnomes are natural engineers", much like they specifically call out that dwarven tool profs are a trait their god imbued them with (though they need to add brewer's tools to the list; it's just too much of a classic trope to not have at this point).
If there's any narrative being pushed somewhere, I am not aware of it. I'll go back and look more closely, but it's been looking a lot more homogonized. It's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just a thing I don't much care for. Races are much less interesting than they used to be. Unified speed for example just breaks my immersion a bit. A halfling walking as fast as a goliath for example makes me roll my eyes.
You must really hate halfling monks 😂
Edit: I did find odd in UA1 that some species like dwarf were combined into one, no Hill or Mountain. Yet others like Gnome had separate lineages for forest and rock. i guess all Mountain dwarf gave you was two +2’s (now everyone is +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1) and medium armor and shields. One trait is no longer needed and the other too culturally specific? I guess I answered my own question.
Not particularly. Their class gives them the added bonus. Not my class fantasy, but it makes sense in my mind. I've seen too many bad kung-fu movies with people running along walls and running up stalks of bamboo. I'd never play one, but it's no more immersion breaking than any other monk type character.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
So hardier is cultural, hill dwarves had it while Mountain didn’t (but now all do)? But a forest gnome casting speak with animals and rock gnomes prestidigitation and tinkering isn’t?
Point on the HP - I think it was more that they realized the bonus HP/hardiness thing didn't make sense for just one subrace of dwarf. So whether it was intended to be cultural or physiological before, it's the latter now.
Regarding gnomes - yes, that's exactly what that means, those spells are from the gnomes' mystical feywild origin, not from a cultural upbringing or tendency. Hence, they get to keep their subraces. The same is true of elves, tieflings, goliaths etc.
Edit: I did find odd in UA1 that some species like dwarf were combined into one, no Hill or Mountain. Yet others like Gnome had separate lineages for forest and rock. i guess all Mountain dwarf gave you was two +2’s (now everyone is +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1) and medium armor and shields. One trait is no longer needed and the other too culturally specific? I guess I answered my own question.
The differences between Hill and Mountain are cultural rather than physiological, and easily replicated using background (specifically the background feat.) You want your Mountain Dwarf that trained with armor regardless of class, that's the Lightly Armored feat and then put your ASIs towards Con and Str. You want your Hill Dwarf that is wiser and more generally hardy, that's Tough feat and put your ASIs towards Con and Wis.
True. The extra 1hp per level that the hill dwarf had is now part of the dwarf in UA1 so all dwarves have it now. So hardier is cultural, hill dwarves had it while Mountain didn’t (but now all do)? But a forest gnome casting speak with animals and rock gnomes prestidigitation and tinkering isn’t?
Sorry, not trying to start a debate and I understand how weapon and armor training is a cultural thing. But being hardier doesn’t seem cultural so Hill dwarves seem like they could have had a separate lineage and mountain could have had something added. Or Gnomes shouldn’t, and maybe other species, shouldn’t have had lineages?
I do wish they had kept multiple lineages for all the species, but TBH they really needed to rework the lineages because many really weren't that interesting or unique. Mountain vs Hill dwarf is like that, they really weren't very different, Mountain gave an extra +1 CON vs Hill gave +1 hp/level - basically the same thing - then some ribbon stuff. Besides Mountains are just really big Hills so I never really understood why they were separate lineages. You could do some more interesting things with dwarves e.g.
Magma Dwarf - an Azer inspired lineage that have adapted to living in volcanos rather than normal mountains. With fire resistance, and the ability to cast Produce Flame
Ice Dwarf - an arctic or glacier inhabiting lineage who can tunnel through frozen ground but also frequently lives on the surface. With cold resistance, and proficiency in Survival.
Surface Dwarf - a lineage of curious dwarves who abandoned subterranean living, and instead becoming gardeners and builders of gravity-defying fantastical stone cities. They could gain Prestidigitation, Druidcraft or Mending as a racial spell, and proficiency in investigation.
5e Gnomes are not from the Feywild. While there was that association in 4th edition - stolen and maintained by Pathfinder in their game - 5th edition does not have the same association. There's nothing in the core, in Tome of Foes, or the 1dnd UA to even remotely suggest it. The write up doesn't say anything about the Feywild, unlike the Harengon. There's no Fey Ancestry, or anything with the word Fey or Fairy for that matter, whereas elves and goblins do; fairies don't have Fey Ancestry, but they are flat out Fey creature type. (EDIT - Same with centaurs and satyrs.)
It seems more like that the gnomes went back to their original creation myth - formed by Garl Glittergold from gemstones, and their magic affinity is just a gift from the god.
I do wish they had kept multiple lineages for all the species, but TBH they really needed to rework the lineages because many really weren't that interesting or unique. Mountain vs Hill dwarf is like that, they really weren't very different, Mountain gave an extra +1 CON vs Hill gave +1 hp/level - basically the same thing - then some ribbon stuff. Besides Mountains are just really big Hills so I never really understood why they were separate lineages. You could do some more interesting things with dwarves e.g.
Hill Dwarves live on the surface of the world (reletively speaking - just a tiny bit under like Halflings and Forest Gnomes). Mountain Dwarves live under the mountain, not upon the mountain. Dwarves get +2 to Con. Hill Dwarves had that +1HP in addition to, not instead of the Con score Bonus. They also have +1 to Wisdom. I don't remember the mountain dwarf difference.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
5e Gnomes are not from the Feywild. While there was that association in 4th edition - stolen and maintained by Pathfinder in their game - 5th edition does not have the same association. There's nothing in the core, in Tome of Foes, or the 1dnd UA to even remotely suggest it. The write up doesn't say anything about the Feywild, unlike the Harengon. There's no Fey Ancestry, or anything with the word Fey or Fairy for that matter, whereas elves and goblins do; fairies don't have Fey Ancestry, but they are flat out Fey creature type. (EDIT - Same with centaurs and satyrs.)
It seems more like that the gnomes went back to their original creation myth - formed by Garl Glittergold from gemstones, and their magic affinity is just a gift from the god.
Fair enough, but my point still stands - even if they're not originally from the Feywild, they still have innate magic bestowed from their creator(s) rather than it being cultural.
I was always curious why the word "race" was used in the first place? Did Cygax ever give a reason? I am guessing that since back in the day players could only play the most human looking classes: Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits (Halflings). I think Half Elves and Half orcs came later.
But it makes total sense now to use species, because players can now play monster and half monster classes. I disagree that monsters of any sort should be played, but it's not my game.
I was always curious why the word "race" was used in the first place? Did Cygax ever give a reason? I am guessing that since back in the day players could only play the most human looking classes: Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits (Halflings). I think Half Elves and Half orcs came later.
But it makes total sense now to use species, because players can now play monster and half monster classes. I disagree that monsters of any sort should be played, but it's not my game.
"Race" has been colloquially used in spec-fic for simple reference to other forms of sapient life since well before D&D, with the general connotation of "group of beings with a common genetic/ethnic background" (eg: elven race, Klingon race, Martian race, etc.). Tolkien, for one, used it as one of several different terms used to refer to the different peoples of his Middle Earth setting, which could easily have led to the creators simply picking up the term as a matter of course. I have no idea how accurate that use is for actual scientific taxonomy (my guess would be "not at all"), but unfortunately that common use has also made it an easy term for hate groups to anchor various specious assertions to and dress up like there's some actual grounding in real science, making it a potentially contentious term. Frankly, when used in spec-fic to refer to groups with either wholly separate origins or who've clearly gone through several orders of magnitude more levels of divergent evolution than you can find among IRL humanity, I'd call it a non-issue, but the fact that someone did try to inject all that specious tripe into D&D in the past makes it an easy hot button topic to aim at D&D, which along with the performative PR value of making a show of changing the name is probably what led to the decision.
"Race" has been colloquially used in spec-fic for simple reference to other forms of sapient life since well before D&D, with the general connotation of "group of beings with a common genetic/ethnic background" (eg: elven race, Klingon race, Martian race, etc.). Tolkien, for one, used it as one of several different terms used to refer to the different peoples of his Middle Earth setting.
He did use it for different types of humans, but the more common use in LoTR was people -- e.g.
Elrond, Council of Elrond:
“The Company of the Ring shall be Nine; and the Nine Walkers shall be set against the Nine Riders that are evil. With you Glorfindel will go; for he has before faced such dangers as you shall and knows the perils of this world.
“For the rest, they shall represent the other Free Peoples of the World: Elves, Dwarves, and Men. Gimli son of Glóin has already spoken for the Dwarves, and I shall send my own two sons with you for the Elves. They are willing to go at least to the passes of the Mountains, and maybe beyond. For men you shall have Aragorn son of Arathorn, for the Ring of Isildur concerns him closely.”
Treebeard, the Long List
Learn now the lore of Living Creatures! First name the four, the free peoples: Eldest of all, the elf-children; Dwarf the delver, dark are his houses; Ent the earthborn, old as mountains; Man the mortal, master of horses:
I don't think it will take. People will still call it "Race" as it's well embedded in the game's terminology now. I hope they preserve the current edition of the digital character sheet accordingly for those that want to stick with the age-old terminology.
I don't intend to say species, I will continue to call it race as I have for 30 years. I'm sure people online will correct me, which will make me roll my eyes and ignore their comment.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
All of this is correct. Gnomes, for example, are small only (as said) and live to 425 years old. Dragonborn and Elves are both exclusively medium. Humans can be either small or medium - but that is so every human, including those with dwarfism, are able to play as their own human self.
Speed has all been standardized - but Wizards did that for basic gameplay reasons. For those of us who follow overland travel rules, a player with even a slightly lesser speed than everyone else is a nightmare, hindering the entire party. Wizards does not really want to burden high-exploration parties just for some narrative sensibilities - that is exactly the kind of change which makes a lot of sense for the update.
I have seen the “everyone in 2024 is the same, Wizards is ruining the game!” argument a lot - first from someone with a lot of alternate accounts banned for racism (which, to be clear, I am not accusing anyone of here of racism - just providing the context of where this particular argument seemed to first enter the DDB forums), and now from others. Too many people, all using the same basic language, for there not to be a common source. I expect someone has been pushing this narrative on YouTube or some other site, and it has bled through to folks who are trusting this source/trusting what they have seen others post, rather than actually looking at the primary document that is the UA material.
If there's any narrative being pushed somewhere, I am not aware of it. I'll go back and look more closely, but it's been looking a lot more homogonized. It's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just a thing I don't much care for. Races are much less interesting than they used to be. Unified speed for example just breaks my immersion a bit. A halfling walking as fast as a goliath for example makes me roll my eyes.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
The Fellowship having to stop every 100 ft so Gimli and the Hobbits could catch up would make me roll my eyes. Since they can't possibly make us both happy, I'll settle for them making me happy 😏
As for races being less interesting... is movement speed of all things really your barometer for that? Do none of the many, many other diverging features matter?
There are still plenty of species where you can't do this. There are no Medium Gnomes or Small Goliaths (in the printed rules anyway.)
My gaming group won't miss slower speeds either - the only slow species anyone typically used was dwarves, and that's largely due to them not being slowed down by heavy armor.
You must really hate halfling monks 😂
Edit: I did find odd in UA1 that some species like dwarf were combined into one, no Hill or Mountain. Yet others like Gnome had separate lineages for forest and rock. i guess all Mountain dwarf gave you was two +2’s (now everyone is +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1) and medium armor and shields. One trait is no longer needed and the other too culturally specific? I guess I answered my own question.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
The differences between Hill and Mountain are cultural rather than physiological, and easily replicated using background (specifically the background feat.) You want your Mountain Dwarf that trained with armor regardless of class, that's the Lightly Armored feat and then put your ASIs towards Con and Str. You want your Hill Dwarf that is wiser and more generally hardy, that's Tough feat and put your ASIs towards Con and Wis.
Giving more customization options isnt homogenization, its just less of the Game world controlling your character's concept. They actually have less homogenization with the new char creation rules. Especially since you can use old races, or the new rules.
True. The extra 1hp per level that the hill dwarf had is now part of the dwarf in UA1 so all dwarves have it now. So hardier is cultural, hill dwarves had it while Mountain didn’t (but now all do)? But a forest gnome casting speak with animals and rock gnomes prestidigitation and tinkering isn’t?
Sorry, not trying to start a debate and I understand how weapon and armor training is a cultural thing. But being hardier doesn’t seem cultural so Hill dwarves seem like they could have had a separate lineage and mountain could have had something added. Or Gnomes shouldn’t, and maybe other species, shouldn’t have had lineages?
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
In the UA they standardized dwarves because there was hardly anything to choose from between the two in the first place, and with them moving armor and weapon profs out of race traits, the easiest thing to do there was just consolidate. The magic end of gnome stuff is more acceptable as a subspecies thing since magic naturally lacks a good analog to reality, and the tinkering hung around mostly because of tradition. Plus they more thoroughly tied the tinkering to magic rather than just making it "rock gnomes are natural engineers", much like they specifically call out that dwarven tool profs are a trait their god imbued them with (though they need to add brewer's tools to the list; it's just too much of a classic trope to not have at this point).
Not particularly. Their class gives them the added bonus. Not my class fantasy, but it makes sense in my mind. I've seen too many bad kung-fu movies with people running along walls and running up stalks of bamboo. I'd never play one, but it's no more immersion breaking than any other monk type character.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Point on the HP - I think it was more that they realized the bonus HP/hardiness thing didn't make sense for just one subrace of dwarf. So whether it was intended to be cultural or physiological before, it's the latter now.
Regarding gnomes - yes, that's exactly what that means, those spells are from the gnomes' mystical feywild origin, not from a cultural upbringing or tendency. Hence, they get to keep their subraces. The same is true of elves, tieflings, goliaths etc.
I do wish they had kept multiple lineages for all the species, but TBH they really needed to rework the lineages because many really weren't that interesting or unique. Mountain vs Hill dwarf is like that, they really weren't very different, Mountain gave an extra +1 CON vs Hill gave +1 hp/level - basically the same thing - then some ribbon stuff. Besides Mountains are just really big Hills so I never really understood why they were separate lineages. You could do some more interesting things with dwarves e.g.
FYI-
5e Gnomes are not from the Feywild. While there was that association in 4th edition - stolen and maintained by Pathfinder in their game - 5th edition does not have the same association. There's nothing in the core, in Tome of Foes, or the 1dnd UA to even remotely suggest it. The write up doesn't say anything about the Feywild, unlike the Harengon. There's no Fey Ancestry, or anything with the word Fey or Fairy for that matter, whereas elves and goblins do; fairies don't have Fey Ancestry, but they are flat out Fey creature type. (EDIT - Same with centaurs and satyrs.)
It seems more like that the gnomes went back to their original creation myth - formed by Garl Glittergold from gemstones, and their magic affinity is just a gift from the god.
Hill Dwarves live on the surface of the world (reletively speaking - just a tiny bit under like Halflings and Forest Gnomes). Mountain Dwarves live under the mountain, not upon the mountain. Dwarves get +2 to Con. Hill Dwarves had that +1HP in addition to, not instead of the Con score Bonus. They also have +1 to Wisdom. I don't remember the mountain dwarf difference.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Fair enough, but my point still stands - even if they're not originally from the Feywild, they still have innate magic bestowed from their creator(s) rather than it being cultural.
I was always curious why the word "race" was used in the first place? Did Cygax ever give a reason? I am guessing that since back in the day players could only play the most human looking classes: Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits (Halflings). I think Half Elves and Half orcs came later.
But it makes total sense now to use species, because players can now play monster and half monster classes. I disagree that monsters of any sort should be played, but it's not my game.
"Race" has been colloquially used in spec-fic for simple reference to other forms of sapient life since well before D&D, with the general connotation of "group of beings with a common genetic/ethnic background" (eg: elven race, Klingon race, Martian race, etc.). Tolkien, for one, used it as one of several different terms used to refer to the different peoples of his Middle Earth setting, which could easily have led to the creators simply picking up the term as a matter of course. I have no idea how accurate that use is for actual scientific taxonomy (my guess would be "not at all"), but unfortunately that common use has also made it an easy term for hate groups to anchor various specious assertions to and dress up like there's some actual grounding in real science, making it a potentially contentious term. Frankly, when used in spec-fic to refer to groups with either wholly separate origins or who've clearly gone through several orders of magnitude more levels of divergent evolution than you can find among IRL humanity, I'd call it a non-issue, but the fact that someone did try to inject all that specious tripe into D&D in the past makes it an easy hot button topic to aim at D&D, which along with the performative PR value of making a show of changing the name is probably what led to the decision.
He did use it for different types of humans, but the more common use in LoTR was people -- e.g.
Elrond, Council of Elrond:
Treebeard, the Long List
I don't think it will take. People will still call it "Race" as it's well embedded in the game's terminology now. I hope they preserve the current edition of the digital character sheet accordingly for those that want to stick with the age-old terminology.
I don't intend to say species, I will continue to call it race as I have for 30 years. I'm sure people online will correct me, which will make me roll my eyes and ignore their comment.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha