I don't know a lot about how race works in 5e and 6e but after the thing you said about Pazio making race less of a mechanical thing is something I disagree with. I have the 3.75/pf1e and the pf2e core rulebooks both on my shelf I went and checked how both of them do race and if anything in pf2e it's more impactful. I say that mainly because of how every race gets to choose a racial feat both at 1st level and at later levels. (5,9,13) They both have ability score modifiers, speed, language, sizes, vision, and extra abilities. The main difference other than the racial feats is on pf1e there are more misc abilities but that's just because pf2e is meant to be a more streamlined system.
Correction. I wrongly included Paizo in my criticism of where racial options are going. An awesome viewer corrected me. I'll be more careful going forward. Thanks for watching, y'all.
Race isn't the appropriate term for any of the "races" in D&D. Gygax has it right by calling any "race" outside of human as "demi-human". They are intelligent and are humanoid, but are not human. Race as currently used is not appropriate. Let's apply D&D to real world now. you are playing as a Homo sapien 45K years ago and you run into a tribe of Neanderthals. Would you call Neanderthals another race or another species? Neanderthals are another species they aren't a race. The same thing applies to Lizard Men, they are not a race they are a completely different species of cold blooded erect bipedal lizards. When you treat race appropriately from the biologic term, all of a sudden all the nitwits on twitter getting up in arms about how racist it is to depict orcs as being savage barbarians as being "wacist", is imbecilic at best and at worst its guys trying to get a payout from WotC to write a module and get paid to shut up and quit hurting WotC bottom line. Get rid of race, call non-human's "demi-humans" and move the ef on as a community.
As I said to a friend of mine The most recent changes have been with stat bonuses being flexible instead of determined by race. It makes sense in that hypothetically there could be a genius orc or a body builder elf...but it also takes some of the uniqueness out of choosing a race. Also makes certain races lose cool powers because they removed negative stat penalties that were there for balance. So you can't have say a minotaur character with +4 STR and -4 intelligence or whatever it was. Every race is +2 to one stat and +1 to another one (or +1 to 3 stats). Now they say species instead of race. I have mixed feelings on this too. I mean technically it's probably more accurate. A minotaur being a different species from a human, for example, seems right. There is definitely more of a difference between the two than between humans with different skin color. But the reasoning they use of being less racist? That doesn't sit well with me. It says something stupid about humanity that it is somehow less racist to call someone a different SPECIES than a different race. That's messed up. Especially considering we basically treat different species as either food, vermin or building materials in real life. I suppose that says less about the game than it does about humanity itself. I'm also not sure what impact that will have on the game itself if any. It probably won't do anything. Hypothetically I suppose it could make the game more racist if players start to dehumanize other species in game. Other changes they made with the lore of Drow, etc. I also have mixed feelings about. Of course I've mainly played in campaigns where the lore was made up or modified by the DM and players rather than necessarily coming straight from the book. The DM could always homebrew a city of good drow or a genius minotaur or whatever if they want to. Trying to retcon and remove evil actions from a game that is about fighting evil and injustice weakens the game. If you remove slavery, for example, from the game entirely you can't have characters fight against it or show how evil it is. Making evil and terrible behavior purely the domain of demons or dragons or other nonhumanoid weakens the game IMO. It's also not realistic.
Blizz got the race AND culture right. Remember when the Tauren got Paladins? They at least put the effort in to justify it with a cultural shift: now the Sunblades were a thing! Yes, a human and a Tauren can both be mechanically Paladins, but the Sunblades and Silverhand aren't the same, because the culture is different. (the one that always felt weird to me was blood elves getting warriors, for that very same reason) This is where I feel WotC is doing wrong (which feeds into the whole "I wish they did campaign setting books instead of adventure books", but that's another talk xD)
I have been using the term species since I started playing back in the 6th-grade. As a saying goes, race is a social construct till you need a blood transfusion or a bone marrow transplant. Anyway, if people don't divide themselves on so called skin color, then it is social politics and religion. Another side note animal breeds of dogs have a given temperament, impulsive skill for hunting or sticking close to the house as guard dogs, then you have those herd dogs for goats, sheep, hell Great Danes depending on which historic doc or myth were breed to hunt bulls and bison by running up and shoulder bumping the animal till the target breaks their ankle. It takes around seven generation and twenty to thirty years to breed a new dog, cat, or any other given type of animal. Humans take around 200 years to create a new Ethnic group. Always adapting and evolving to the local environment. Traditional military families in Europe only married within their social class, creating bunch of hyperactive bipolar narcissist that are over territorial fight vs flight impulse. My extended German born cousin are all nuts with centuries of protestant religious civil war blood feuds. Also Tolkien LotR was base on his WW experience, so orcs were Germans.
Race is the wrong word meaningwise, Species would be much more accurate. Though I admit it doesn't have the same feeling. It feels a bit dehumanising. But maybe that is what is needed so you don't rely on human assumptions. That way you have to step back to look at them first as a biological species before you think how their culture is put on that. With so many using their own worlds reinforcing those differences is always going to be a group playstyle decision. Though it could be useful in setting books to offer optional restrictions to better guide their representation.
What do you think about switching the word 'race' for 'folk' or 'kin'? I think species would fit for a sci-fi setting. That's just my personal preference, however. Thanks for the comment and thanks for watching!
@@magicusergames I agree on species sounding more sci fi. Folk to me sounds even more like there is only a few cultural differences but they are generally the same. Kin maybe. Possibly lineage or ancestry?
@@magicusergames This is mostly due to normalization of a misuse of the word race. Race is anachronistic to the medieval period; we first see the English word in the 16th century (where it was a much more generic word) and it did not develop a precise meaning akin to ethnicity until the late 17th century. 'Species' actually appeared at least as early as the late 14th century, and acquired a meaning almost interchangeable with its modern taxonomic denotation at around 1600 (almost a century earlier), making it at least as appropriate for a medieval-ish setting. While 'race' sounds more appropriate to the modern ear, this is largely due to the projection of modern language and paradigms onto a misunderstood past.
I disagree with what you're saying. Let's take Humans in our world for example. You have someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger and you have a Stephen Hawking. Same race, COMPLETELY different "stats" but both humans. Why wouldn't there be those same type of differences in D&D races? You're going to have tough dumb orcs AND smart weak orcs or an orc that has innate magical powers. Now you can play the character you want, not be forced to play an elf because they are the "best" race or only race that can do certain things. Good video though! Cheers:)
I actually agree with you! That's one of my biggest issues with 'race as class.' However, I think we can find a way to combine 'race as class' and being able to have more options. Have class options be specific to race. Maybe an orc spellcaster plays differently than the human spellcaster. That's where my head is at. Thanks for the comment and thanks for watching!
@@magicusergames that's what's great about TTRPG and D&D is everyone's game is run different, you can use the rules you want to use or make up your own rules! It makes everyone's table unique, every one's stories different. Your group could run Curse of Strahd and my group could run it and have 2 completely different outcomes!
Wotc is moving towards making their species/lineage/race a homogenous blob. It will give you a couple semi-usable capabilities(like darkvision) but eventually wotc will make even those abilities open to everyone. Eventually all races will be the same. It will just be a different wrapper. Which is fine. They want to sell their product and they want to appeal to the most amount of customers possible However I'm a DM. I don't give two shits what wotc does with their races. In my game racial stats exist and will always exist. You won't start with a +2 int and a +1 as an orc. Sure, your orc wizard might not be min-maxxed but he can easily end the campaign being one of the smartest and most powerful wizards in the known planes. Simply put, wotc might own D&D but they don't own my table.
Why couldn't an orc have a +2 int? That's what doesn't make sense to me. You're saying of ALL the orcs in a given world NONE of them are more intelligent than the rest? They are ALL stupid? Thats silly imo But like you said, you can run things the way you want, that's what's cool about TTRPGs in general and if your players like it then cool.
@@alwaysfps_ You grossly misunderstand what racial stats even represent. Just because racial stats for half orcs are +2 str +1 con doesn't mean the entire race of half orcs are big dumb morons. It just means they are a bit stronger and a little more stout than an average person. You'll notice there are no limits on intelligence for any race(now called species). So you can take your half orc with +2 str and +1 con, use the standard array and slam your 15 into your int and play a wizard. Nothing is stopping you from doing that. Nothing will stop you from using your ASI's to boost your intelligence to 20, and if you play in my game long enough, you might find an item that boosts your intelligence beyond even 20.
@@Biostasis5x7 It still doesn't make sense that EVERY SINGLE ORC EVER BORN IN THE ENTIRETY OF YOUR WORLD has a +2 str +1 con. That's just my opinion. You're allowed to have your own. Thats what's fun about TTRPGs
@@alwaysfps_ Really, it makes no sense at all? So, chihuahuas aren't weaker than pitbulls? Gorillas aren't stronger than humans? Even in game every orc isn't super strong. Your PC half-orc wizard, dumping str, would have a str score of 10. Which is as strong as an average human. Meaning, the local farmer Jorge's wife would be as strong as your PC half-orc wizard. Meaning there are half-orcs out there that aren't very strong, are super smart, AND STILL HAVE +2 STR AND +1 CON. Not all orcs have the same stat block, the orc warchief is WAY smarter than a standard orc. It's also objectively wrong to think that being taller and wider doesn't have measurable mechanical advantages. The strongest people in the world don't look like the local kids in 4th grade. Half-orcs and Dragonborn are very large creatures, and they both have bonuses to str.
I don't know a lot about how race works in 5e and 6e but after the thing you said about Pazio making race less of a mechanical thing is something I disagree with.
I have the 3.75/pf1e and the pf2e core rulebooks both on my shelf I went and checked how both of them do race and if anything in pf2e it's more impactful. I say that mainly because of how every race gets to choose a racial feat both at 1st level and at later levels. (5,9,13) They both have ability score modifiers, speed, language, sizes, vision, and extra abilities. The main difference other than the racial feats is on pf1e there are more misc abilities but that's just because pf2e is meant to be a more streamlined system.
My mistake. I thought pf2e fell under that category of, 'let's go shopping for racial options.' Thanks for the correction and for watching!
Correction. I wrongly included Paizo in my criticism of where racial options are going. An awesome viewer corrected me. I'll be more careful going forward. Thanks for watching, y'all.
Race isn't the appropriate term for any of the "races" in D&D. Gygax has it right by calling any "race" outside of human as "demi-human". They are intelligent and are humanoid, but are not human. Race as currently used is not appropriate. Let's apply D&D to real world now. you are playing as a Homo sapien 45K years ago and you run into a tribe of Neanderthals. Would you call Neanderthals another race or another species? Neanderthals are another species they aren't a race. The same thing applies to Lizard Men, they are not a race they are a completely different species of cold blooded erect bipedal lizards.
When you treat race appropriately from the biologic term, all of a sudden all the nitwits on twitter getting up in arms about how racist it is to depict orcs as being savage barbarians as being "wacist", is imbecilic at best and at worst its guys trying to get a payout from WotC to write a module and get paid to shut up and quit hurting WotC bottom line.
Get rid of race, call non-human's "demi-humans" and move the ef on as a community.
As I said to a friend of mine
The most recent changes have been with stat bonuses being flexible instead of determined by race. It makes sense in that hypothetically there could be a genius orc or a body builder elf...but it also takes some of the uniqueness out of choosing a race. Also makes certain races lose cool powers because they removed negative stat penalties that were there for balance.
So you can't have say a minotaur character with +4 STR and -4 intelligence or whatever it was. Every race is +2 to one stat and +1 to another one (or +1 to 3 stats).
Now they say species instead of race. I have mixed feelings on this too. I mean technically it's probably more accurate. A minotaur being a different species from a human, for example, seems right. There is definitely more of a difference between the two than between humans with different skin color.
But the reasoning they use of being less racist? That doesn't sit well with me. It says something stupid about humanity that it is somehow less racist to call someone a different SPECIES than a different race. That's messed up. Especially considering we basically treat different species as either food, vermin or building materials in real life.
I suppose that says less about the game than it does about humanity itself.
I'm also not sure what impact that will have on the game itself if any. It probably won't do anything. Hypothetically I suppose it could make the game more racist if players start to dehumanize other species in game.
Other changes they made with the lore of Drow, etc. I also have mixed feelings about. Of course I've mainly played in campaigns where the lore was made up or modified by the DM and players rather than necessarily coming straight from the book. The DM could always homebrew a city of good drow or a genius minotaur or whatever if they want to.
Trying to retcon and remove evil actions from a game that is about fighting evil and injustice weakens the game. If you remove slavery, for example, from the game entirely you can't have characters fight against it or show how evil it is.
Making evil and terrible behavior purely the domain of demons or dragons or other nonhumanoid weakens the game IMO. It's also not realistic.
Not a huge fan of the species change. Doesn't sound like dnd, to me.
Great video 😊
Blizz got the race AND culture right.
Remember when the Tauren got Paladins? They at least put the effort in to justify it with a cultural shift: now the Sunblades were a thing!
Yes, a human and a Tauren can both be mechanically Paladins, but the Sunblades and Silverhand aren't the same, because the culture is different. (the one that always felt weird to me was blood elves getting warriors, for that very same reason)
This is where I feel WotC is doing wrong (which feeds into the whole "I wish they did campaign setting books instead of adventure books", but that's another talk xD)
I miss the days of good quality setting books. Thanks for watching.
I have been using the term species since I started playing back in the 6th-grade.
As a saying goes, race is a social construct till you need a blood transfusion or a bone marrow transplant.
Anyway, if people don't divide themselves on so called skin color, then it is social politics and religion. Another side note animal breeds of dogs have a given temperament, impulsive skill for hunting or sticking close to the house as guard dogs, then you have those herd dogs for goats, sheep, hell Great Danes depending on which historic doc or myth were breed to hunt bulls and bison by running up and shoulder bumping the animal till the target breaks their ankle.
It takes around seven generation and twenty to thirty years to breed a new dog, cat, or any other given type of animal. Humans take around 200 years to create a new Ethnic group. Always adapting and evolving to the local environment.
Traditional military families in Europe only married within their social class, creating bunch of hyperactive bipolar narcissist that are over territorial fight vs flight impulse. My extended German born cousin are all nuts with centuries of protestant religious civil war blood feuds.
Also Tolkien LotR was base on his WW experience, so orcs were Germans.
Race is the wrong word meaningwise, Species would be much more accurate. Though I admit it doesn't have the same feeling. It feels a bit dehumanising. But maybe that is what is needed so you don't rely on human assumptions. That way you have to step back to look at them first as a biological species before you think how their culture is put on that. With so many using their own worlds reinforcing those differences is always going to be a group playstyle decision. Though it could be useful in setting books to offer optional restrictions to better guide their representation.
What do you think about switching the word 'race' for 'folk' or 'kin'? I think species would fit for a sci-fi setting. That's just my personal preference, however. Thanks for the comment and thanks for watching!
@@magicusergames I agree on species sounding more sci fi. Folk to me sounds even more like there is only a few cultural differences but they are generally the same. Kin maybe. Possibly lineage or ancestry?
@@magicusergames This is mostly due to normalization of a misuse of the word race. Race is anachronistic to the medieval period; we first see the English word in the 16th century (where it was a much more generic word) and it did not develop a precise meaning akin to ethnicity until the late 17th century. 'Species' actually appeared at least as early as the late 14th century, and acquired a meaning almost interchangeable with its modern taxonomic denotation at around 1600 (almost a century earlier), making it at least as appropriate for a medieval-ish setting. While 'race' sounds more appropriate to the modern ear, this is largely due to the projection of modern language and paradigms onto a misunderstood past.
I disagree with what you're saying.
Let's take Humans in our world for example. You have someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger and you have a Stephen Hawking. Same race, COMPLETELY different "stats" but both humans.
Why wouldn't there be those same type of differences in D&D races? You're going to have tough dumb orcs AND smart weak orcs or an orc that has innate magical powers.
Now you can play the character you want, not be forced to play an elf because they are the "best" race or only race that can do certain things.
Good video though! Cheers:)
I actually agree with you! That's one of my biggest issues with 'race as class.' However, I think we can find a way to combine 'race as class' and being able to have more options. Have class options be specific to race. Maybe an orc spellcaster plays differently than the human spellcaster. That's where my head is at. Thanks for the comment and thanks for watching!
@@magicusergames that's what's great about TTRPG and D&D is everyone's game is run different, you can use the rules you want to use or make up your own rules!
It makes everyone's table unique, every one's stories different.
Your group could run Curse of Strahd and my group could run it and have 2 completely different outcomes!
Wotc is moving towards making their species/lineage/race a homogenous blob. It will give you a couple semi-usable capabilities(like darkvision) but eventually wotc will make even those abilities open to everyone. Eventually all races will be the same. It will just be a different wrapper.
Which is fine. They want to sell their product and they want to appeal to the most amount of customers possible
However I'm a DM. I don't give two shits what wotc does with their races. In my game racial stats exist and will always exist. You won't start with a +2 int and a +1 as an orc. Sure, your orc wizard might not be min-maxxed but he can easily end the campaign being one of the smartest and most powerful wizards in the known planes.
Simply put, wotc might own D&D but they don't own my table.
Why couldn't an orc have a +2 int?
That's what doesn't make sense to me. You're saying of ALL the orcs in a given world NONE of them are more intelligent than the rest?
They are ALL stupid? Thats silly imo
But like you said, you can run things the way you want, that's what's cool about TTRPGs in general and if your players like it then cool.
I agree. I really do think that some sort of variation of “race as class” would fix this issue. Thanks for watching!
@@alwaysfps_ You grossly misunderstand what racial stats even represent.
Just because racial stats for half orcs are +2 str +1 con doesn't mean the entire race of half orcs are big dumb morons. It just means they are a bit stronger and a little more stout than an average person. You'll notice there are no limits on intelligence for any race(now called species). So you can take your half orc with +2 str and +1 con, use the standard array and slam your 15 into your int and play a wizard. Nothing is stopping you from doing that. Nothing will stop you from using your ASI's to boost your intelligence to 20, and if you play in my game long enough, you might find an item that boosts your intelligence beyond even 20.
@@Biostasis5x7
It still doesn't make sense that EVERY SINGLE ORC EVER BORN IN THE ENTIRETY OF YOUR WORLD has a +2 str +1 con. That's just my opinion. You're allowed to have your own.
Thats what's fun about TTRPGs
@@alwaysfps_ Really, it makes no sense at all?
So, chihuahuas aren't weaker than pitbulls? Gorillas aren't stronger than humans?
Even in game every orc isn't super strong. Your PC half-orc wizard, dumping str, would have a str score of 10. Which is as strong as an average human. Meaning, the local farmer Jorge's wife would be as strong as your PC half-orc wizard. Meaning there are half-orcs out there that aren't very strong, are super smart, AND STILL HAVE +2 STR AND +1 CON.
Not all orcs have the same stat block, the orc warchief is WAY smarter than a standard orc.
It's also objectively wrong to think that being taller and wider doesn't have measurable mechanical advantages. The strongest people in the world don't look like the local kids in 4th grade. Half-orcs and Dragonborn are very large creatures, and they both have bonuses to str.