The way the M3 races are presented in the character builder is unintuitive. For example, the Sea Elf is all by itself instead of anywhere near the Elves, the Duergar is not really near the Dwarves, and the 4 Genasi are all over the place instead of near each other or the regular Genasi…. I understand why they aren’t nested under the original race groups, but the way they are presented now (for lack of a better term) sucks eggs. At the very least they could be “Elf, Sea;” “Dwarf, Duergar;” and “Genasi, [Element]” to get them to group alphabetically for crying out loud.
I've seen a couple of threads about how cluttered the character builder race selection screen is now that MotM reprinted 30 races and seems to have eliminated the concept of subraces. I figured this kind of needed its own thread.
Please group these in race groups. The race groups could use an update to differentiate subraces from variants, but that can come after the cleanup. There are 6 separate goblinoids, 5 separate genasi, and 4 separate elves. And none of them are even listed in a row, they are all scattered through the list.
Looking at your thread, I still think using race groups is the best option for now and make changes to the builder (new toggles maybe?) later.
I get the sense that WotC wants to move away from subraces (and possibly race groups entirely), but race groups makes the toolset (and racial feats, which I also get the sense is a dead mechanic) easier to use.
I think moving away from subraces & race groups is a mistake on WotC’s part. But I disagree with most of what WotC is doing lately so I must just be wrong all over I guess. 😒
I think moving away from subraces & race groups is a mistake on WotC’s part. But I disagree with most of what WotC is doing lately so I must just be wrong all over I guess. 😒
Oh no I get the feeling that most DDB users are with you on this one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Leaving OGL 1.0(a) untouched and making SRD 5.1 CC-BY-4.0 is a great first step. The next is a promise to do the same for future editions. Here's a discussion thread on that.
Agreed. They should have just used the preexisting race groups, or made different “legacy” race groups for the older races and made new race groups for the newer stuff.
I agree this is a big problem. As is, the character builder is pretty impenetrable to anyone other than a very experienced and informed user. With how it is now, as the DM I would have to set up any new player characters for them. I'm pretty disappointed in the implementation of MotM here (not to get into the content of MotM, which I know people have very strong opinions about). I'm glad all races and monsters weren't just overwritten, but just duplicating them and then not even organizing the races/subraces the same way makes for a terrible user experience. There should be an actual versioning system, where each race/monster has just one entry with the option to select the version. This would also future-proof any subsequent changes. Beyond this, we need a long overdue revamp of toggling which content/version is allowed for a campaign, instead of the current limited toggles per character that don't really capture what as a DM we want our campaign to be. Why do we have a toggle specifically for Eberron Content, but not for every unique setting? What if some groups prefer to always default to the newer Tasha's and MotM rules, while others want to limit it to the core books?
I think moving away from subraces & race groups is a mistake on WotC’s part. But I disagree with most of what WotC is doing lately so I must just be wrong all over I guess. 😒
Oh no I get the feeling that most DDB users are with you on this one.
As I've said elsewhere, I massively agree that we need to change how the race select page of the character builder works - there are simply too many races now, with insufficient ways to group and filter them to make meaningful decisions.
The intent of Race Groups was always to allow us to ensure that subraces and variants were grouped together, under the parent race.
We're now in a situation where Sea Elf and Eladrin are full races (not subraces or variants) that stand on their own.
From conducting user tests within the community, prior to release, we determined that grouping these new races under the old race led to a LOT more confusion, especially with people thinking that the new race should gain the traits of the "parent" race.
What we need is a different way of being able to present, group and filter these races.
As long as it’s being considered at least. Hopefully it’s being considered by the team that’s looking into it. That is, unless they have a better idea cooking.
The other thought I had is that, even though the various new elves are now stand alone races,* they could still be grouped as M3 “Elf Races,” simply by redefining what a race group represents as a group of interrelated races since they all count as Elves RAW anyway. Same with the goblinoids that all count as Goblins under the new RAW. If they don’t fit the current definition of a “race group,” just change that definition and bango-bongo, a potential solution presents itself. Ne? Just spitballing here.
*That is something I personally believe to be a fault in design, but it’s on WotC, not DDB.
From conducting user tests within the community, prior to release, we determined that grouping these new races under the old race led to a LOT more confusion, especially with people thinking that the new race should gain the traits of the "parent" race.
What we need is a different way of being able to present, group and filter these races.
As I mentioned in my first comment, race groups need to no longer be associated with parent race. There are enough variants that don't use parent race that this should have been done a while ago (hells, humans and a few other races groups have never been a parent race to begin with).
There can/should be a way to indicate which races are subraces and which are variants. Maybe sort subraces to the top and make them a different color and/or put a symbol in front of their name, idk. These new races are variants and should be grouped like variants.
I would break them up by setting, with a specific "generic" setting tab as well
That way legacy races are broken down by setting - Eberron, FR, Magic, Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Spelljammer, etc and then 1 Generic Setting, which would have PHB original, MoMV, for the non-specific race options.
DM's would be able to turn the "settings" access on/off depending on campaign.
I would break them up by setting, with a specific "generic" setting tab as well
That way legacy races are broken down by setting - Eberron, FR, Magic, Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Spelljammer, etc and then 1 Generic Setting, which would have PHB original, MoMV, for the non-specific race options.
DM's would be able to turn the "settings" access on/off depending on campaign.
Everyone wins.
They are kind of doing that with toggles in character preferences. While campaigns do need more content controls for DMs, this isn't enough to fix the current clutter issue.
From conducting user tests within the community, prior to release, we determined that grouping these new races under the old race led to a LOT more confusion, especially with people thinking that the new race should gain the traits of the "parent" race.
If this is the case, why are the Fizban and Wildemount Dragonborn races still listed under the "Dragonborn" header?
Leaving OGL 1.0(a) untouched and making SRD 5.1 CC-BY-4.0 is a great first step. The next is a promise to do the same for future editions. Here's a discussion thread on that.
From conducting user tests within the community, prior to release, we determined that grouping these new races under the old race led to a LOT more confusion, especially with people thinking that the new race should gain the traits of the "parent" race.
If this is the case, why are the Fizban and Wildemount Dragonborn races still listed under the "Dragonborn" header?
For that matter, why do the dragonborn, half-elf, half-orc, human, lineages, orc, and tiefling race groups even exist? None of these have a "parent" race.
It is like a character killing a dozen innocent NPCs and then refusing to kill a bandit because "killing is against the law."
If anyone at DDB (or anyone with a link to prior information) could answer why the race list is now longer than a transcription of Mordenkainen talking about himself, rather than keeping the MotM versions of Genasi under the existing Genasi header as a example, I'd really like to hear why. Does someone on the design team have a thing for excessive scrolling? It's not a big deal either way, but seems like a really wierd thing to go out of your way to do when you already have racial headers set up.
The way the M3 races are presented in the character builder is unintuitive. For example, the Sea Elf is all by itself instead of anywhere near the Elves, the Duergar is not really near the Dwarves, and the 4 Genasi are all over the place instead of near each other or the regular Genasi…. I understand why they aren’t nested under the original race groups, but the way they are presented now (for lack of a better term) sucks eggs. At the very least they could be “Elf, Sea;” “Dwarf, Duergar;” and “Genasi, [Element]” to get them to group alphabetically for crying out loud.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I've seen a couple of threads about how cluttered the character builder race selection screen is now that MotM reprinted 30 races and seems to have eliminated the concept of subraces. I figured this kind of needed its own thread.
Please group these in race groups. The race groups could use an update to differentiate subraces from variants, but that can come after the cleanup. There are 6 separate goblinoids, 5 separate genasi, and 4 separate elves. And none of them are even listed in a row, they are all scattered through the list.
Yup, I had already mentioned this myself: (https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/d-d-beyond-feedback/140989-presentation-of-m3-races-in-the-character-builder).
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Didn't notice that. Too many threads about this.
Looking at your thread, I still think using race groups is the best option for now and make changes to the builder (new toggles maybe?) later.
I get the sense that WotC wants to move away from subraces (and possibly race groups entirely), but race groups makes the toolset (and racial feats, which I also get the sense is a dead mechanic) easier to use.
I think moving away from subraces & race groups is a mistake on WotC’s part. But I disagree with most of what WotC is doing lately so I must just be wrong all over I guess. 😒
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Oh no I get the feeling that most DDB users are with you on this one.
Leaving OGL 1.0(a) untouched and making SRD 5.1 CC-BY-4.0 is a great first step. The next is a promise to do the same for future editions. Here's a discussion thread on that.
#OpenDnD
DDB is great, but it could be better. Here are some things I think could improve DDB
Agreed. They should have just used the preexisting race groups, or made different “legacy” race groups for the older races and made new race groups for the newer stuff.
I agree this is a big problem. As is, the character builder is pretty impenetrable to anyone other than a very experienced and informed user. With how it is now, as the DM I would have to set up any new player characters for them. I'm pretty disappointed in the implementation of MotM here (not to get into the content of MotM, which I know people have very strong opinions about). I'm glad all races and monsters weren't just overwritten, but just duplicating them and then not even organizing the races/subraces the same way makes for a terrible user experience. There should be an actual versioning system, where each race/monster has just one entry with the option to select the version. This would also future-proof any subsequent changes. Beyond this, we need a long overdue revamp of toggling which content/version is allowed for a campaign, instead of the current limited toggles per character that don't really capture what as a DM we want our campaign to be. Why do we have a toggle specifically for Eberron Content, but not for every unique setting? What if some groups prefer to always default to the newer Tasha's and MotM rules, while others want to limit it to the core books?
I agree.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersAs I've said elsewhere, I massively agree that we need to change how the race select page of the character builder works - there are simply too many races now, with insufficient ways to group and filter them to make meaningful decisions.
The intent of Race Groups was always to allow us to ensure that subraces and variants were grouped together, under the parent race.
We're now in a situation where Sea Elf and Eladrin are full races (not subraces or variants) that stand on their own.
From conducting user tests within the community, prior to release, we determined that grouping these new races under the old race led to a LOT more confusion, especially with people thinking that the new race should gain the traits of the "parent" race.
What we need is a different way of being able to present, group and filter these races.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Stormknight,
Have you considered simply using the same method DDB’s homebrewer’s have been using for years? Please see the Subclasses & Races FAQ #5 for more information: (https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/homebrew-house-rules/131411-a-homebrewers-how-to-faq).
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersYes, and many other options.
It's not my team that's looking into this though.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
As long as it’s being considered at least. Hopefully it’s being considered by the team that’s looking into it. That is, unless they have a better idea cooking.
The other thought I had is that, even though the various new elves are now stand alone races,* they could still be grouped as M3 “Elf Races,” simply by redefining what a race group represents as a group of interrelated races since they all count as Elves RAW anyway. Same with the goblinoids that all count as Goblins under the new RAW. If they don’t fit the current definition of a “race group,” just change that definition and bango-bongo, a potential solution presents itself. Ne? Just spitballing here.
*That is something I personally believe to be a fault in design, but it’s on WotC, not DDB.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
As I mentioned in my first comment, race groups need to no longer be associated with parent race. There are enough variants that don't use parent race that this should have been done a while ago (hells, humans and a few other races groups have never been a parent race to begin with).
There can/should be a way to indicate which races are subraces and which are variants. Maybe sort subraces to the top and make them a different color and/or put a symbol in front of their name, idk. These new races are variants and should be grouped like variants.
I would break them up by setting, with a specific "generic" setting tab as well
That way legacy races are broken down by setting - Eberron, FR, Magic, Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Spelljammer, etc and then 1 Generic Setting, which would have PHB original, MoMV, for the non-specific race options.
DM's would be able to turn the "settings" access on/off depending on campaign.
Everyone wins.
They are kind of doing that with toggles in character preferences. While campaigns do need more content controls for DMs, this isn't enough to fix the current clutter issue.
If this is the case, why are the Fizban and Wildemount Dragonborn races still listed under the "Dragonborn" header?
Leaving OGL 1.0(a) untouched and making SRD 5.1 CC-BY-4.0 is a great first step. The next is a promise to do the same for future editions. Here's a discussion thread on that.
#OpenDnD
DDB is great, but it could be better. Here are some things I think could improve DDB
For that matter, why do the dragonborn, half-elf, half-orc, human, lineages, orc, and tiefling race groups even exist? None of these have a "parent" race.
It is like a character killing a dozen innocent NPCs and then refusing to kill a bandit because "killing is against the law."
If anyone at DDB (or anyone with a link to prior information) could answer why the race list is now longer than a transcription of Mordenkainen talking about himself, rather than keeping the MotM versions of Genasi under the existing Genasi header as a example, I'd really like to hear why. Does someone on the design team have a thing for excessive scrolling? It's not a big deal either way, but seems like a really wierd thing to go out of your way to do when you already have racial headers set up.
Something about "user tests within the community prior to release"? IDK. There are several feedback threads about it like this one.