Ok, so just finished reading about the upcoming changes at this article https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2021/10/dd-wotc-unveils-new-rules-for-monsters-and-player-races.html and I can get over, and even support getting rid of purely cultural identifiers such as alignment and languages. But when did age and size become an issue? So now I might be part of a group with a seven foot tall 800 year old halfling? This feels ridiculous. Also, I guess charm and hold person spells are going to be nerfed since many creatures are going to be reclassified into another type.
Hello MayhemIsEverywhere,
You can encounter that now. In almost every group I have been in there has been at least one person who wanted to be a specific race, but wanted to be in some way exceptional. A gray Eladrin who was cursed to be divorced from the seasons, a dwarf as tall as a man (it was funny to me that this was mentioned in the article you linked), a half-orc whose parent was an orgillon, making them nearly as large as one, and many others. I do not quite see the issue here. If the DM is okay with it and gives it a green light, is there really a problem?
Yeah it's just odd when my 8ft halfling bard can hide behind the 3ft tall Goliath legally.... Just silly imo
Ok, so just finished reading about the upcoming changes at this article https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2021/10/dd-wotc-unveils-new-rules-for-monsters-and-player-races.html and I can get over, and even support getting rid of purely cultural identifiers such as alignment and languages. But when did age and size become an issue? So now I might be part of a group with a seven foot tall 800 year old halfling? This feels ridiculous. Also, I guess charm and hold person spells are going to be nerfed since many creatures are going to be reclassified into another type.
Hello MayhemIsEverywhere,
You can encounter that now. In almost every group I have been in there has been at least one person who wanted to be a specific race, but wanted to be in some way exceptional. A gray Eladrin who was cursed to be divorced from the seasons, a dwarf as tall as a man (it was funny to me that this was mentioned in the article you linked), a half-orc whose parent was an orgillon, making them nearly as large as one, and many others. I do not quite see the issue here. If the DM is okay with it and gives it a green light, is there really a problem?
Yes, there is. I enjoy each of the races as being distinct. Why be an elf if one of the defining features can just be cloned by every random individual? Why even have world building?
Ok, so just finished reading about the upcoming changes at this article https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2021/10/dd-wotc-unveils-new-rules-for-monsters-and-player-races.html and I can get over, and even support getting rid of purely cultural identifiers such as alignment and languages. But when did age and size become an issue? So now I might be part of a group with a seven foot tall 800 year old halfling? This feels ridiculous. Also, I guess charm and hold person spells are going to be nerfed since many creatures are going to be reclassified into another type.
Hello MayhemIsEverywhere,
You can encounter that now. In almost every group I have been in there has been at least one person who wanted to be a specific race, but wanted to be in some way exceptional. A gray Eladrin who was cursed to be divorced from the seasons, a dwarf as tall as a man (it was funny to me that this was mentioned in the article you linked), a half-orc whose parent was an orgillon, making them nearly as large as one, and many others. I do not quite see the issue here. If the DM is okay with it and gives it a green light, is there really a problem?
Yes, there is. I enjoy each of the races as being distinct. Why be an elf if one of the defining features can just be cloned by every random individual? Why even have world building?
Sorry, but how is what some other DM does at their table a problem for you at yours? How does that affect you in any way?
[X] Person spells are supposed to be less powerful than [X] Monster spells. The fact that you could do what you needed to do with a "Person" spell instead of a "Monster" spell ninety-nine times out of a hundred always felt weird.
And anything that cuts back on Counterspell cheese is also a worthwhile endeavor, I'd say. Little is more disheartening to a DM than trying to portray a dangerous spellcaster villain while four of your PCs all squirm in their seats waiting for their chance to bellow "COUNTERSPELL!"
My problem with things like counterspell isn’t so much that it exists, it’s that so many classes can use it. Wizard sure, maybe sorcerer. But bards? Why?
Removing alignment and hard set racial ASIs I support. And I don't mind some borderline races where they can choose to be small or medium. If they do say though 'halflings can be as tall as people' etc, that I would take issue with.
Part of the issue may well be that many DMs do not allow species with essentially infinite lifespans to retain them, a'la elves and dwarves. At my own table, for instance, elves live only two or three centuries, not twenty or thirty, and dwarves tend to run down and pass after two. Primarily because the hyper-extended lifespans of many such species make them impossible to realistically portray next to more conventionally-lived species, and if those species are forced to be Several Millenia Old all'a time I would forbid them to my players. Same the other way - some DMs extend the useful adventuring livers of creatures too short-lived to otherwise finish a campaign, such as kobolds, goblins, or aarakocra. Fine-tuning lifespans to fit their own world is something a lot of DMs do
As for size? If a player wants to run a six-foot halfling suffering from gigantism, bereft of his home and feeling out of place within a world he never wanted to inhabit? If the DM's down, who cares. If a player says "I want to play a goliath, but like...the shortest, meanest goliath, with the most aggressive Italian-Short-Guy attitude I can manage" and the DM's down? Again, who cares. It's a number, it rarely comes up in play anyways since D&D is so bloody godawful at dealing with size in any real mechanical sense.
Part of the issue may well be that many DMs do not allow species with essentially infinite lifespans to retain them, a'la elves and dwarves. At my own table, for instance, elves live only two or three centuries, not twenty or thirty, and dwarves tend to run down and pass after two. Primarily because the hyper-extended lifespans of many such species make them impossible to realistically portray next to more conventionally-lived species, and if those species are forced to be Several Millenia Old all'a time I would forbid them to my players. Same the other way - some DMs extend the useful adventuring livers of creatures too short-lived to otherwise finish a campaign, such as kobolds, goblins, or aarakocra. Fine-tuning lifespans to fit their own world is something a lot of DMs do
As for size? If a player wants to run a six-foot halfling suffering from gigantism, bereft of his home and feeling out of place within a world he never wanted to inhabit? If the DM's down, who cares. If a player says "I want to play a goliath, but like...the shortest, meanest goliath, with the most aggressive Italian-Short-Guy attitude I can manage" and the DM's down? Again, who cares. It's a number, it rarely comes up in play anyways since D&D is so bloody godawful at dealing with size in any real mechanical sense.
I'm fine with outliers in terms of size. Like a small goliath or a halfing with gigantism, I just would still want a desription of the general sizes to give the baseline for normal. I guess we'll see what actually comes of race descriptions in the future.
Ok, so just finished reading about the upcoming changes at this article https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2021/10/dd-wotc-unveils-new-rules-for-monsters-and-player-races.html and I can get over, and even support getting rid of purely cultural identifiers such as alignment and languages. But when did age and size become an issue? So now I might be part of a group with a seven foot tall 800 year old halfling? This feels ridiculous. Also, I guess charm and hold person spells are going to be nerfed since many creatures are going to be reclassified into another type.
Hello MayhemIsEverywhere,
You can encounter that now. In almost every group I have been in there has been at least one person who wanted to be a specific race, but wanted to be in some way exceptional. A gray Eladrin who was cursed to be divorced from the seasons, a dwarf as tall as a man (it was funny to me that this was mentioned in the article you linked), a half-orc whose parent was an orgillon, making them nearly as large as one, and many others. I do not quite see the issue here. If the DM is okay with it and gives it a green light, is there really a problem?
Yes, there is. I enjoy each of the races as being distinct. Why be an elf if one of the defining features can just be cloned by every random individual? Why even have world building?
Sorry, but how is what some other DM does at their table a problem for you at yours? How does that affect you in any way?
Some other DM? That’s the problem with your argument. It always assumes I’m the DM. It affects me if I don’t have control of the table.
[X] Person spells are supposed to be less powerful than [X] Monster spells. The fact that you could do what you needed to do with a "Person" spell instead of a "Monster" spell ninety-nine times out of a hundred always felt weird.
And anything that cuts back on Counterspell cheese is also a worthwhile endeavor, I'd say. Little is more disheartening to a DM than trying to portray a dangerous spellcaster villain while four of your PCs all squirm in their seats waiting for their chance to bellow "COUNTERSPELL!"
My problem with things like counterspell isn’t so much that it exists, it’s that so many classes can use it. Wizard sure, maybe sorcerer. But bards? Why?
If a bard has counterspell it's because they picked it as one of their Magical Secrets spells. Which they generally don't get until level 10 unless you're a lore bard. Wizard, sorcerer and warlock are the ones that get it by default. (And warlock with its limited spells per short rest, is probably less likely to pick counterspell.)
Ok, so just finished reading about the upcoming changes at this article https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2021/10/dd-wotc-unveils-new-rules-for-monsters-and-player-races.html and I can get over, and even support getting rid of purely cultural identifiers such as alignment and languages. But when did age and size become an issue? So now I might be part of a group with a seven foot tall 800 year old halfling? This feels ridiculous. Also, I guess charm and hold person spells are going to be nerfed since many creatures are going to be reclassified into another type.
Hello MayhemIsEverywhere,
You can encounter that now. In almost every group I have been in there has been at least one person who wanted to be a specific race, but wanted to be in some way exceptional. A gray Eladrin who was cursed to be divorced from the seasons, a dwarf as tall as a man (it was funny to me that this was mentioned in the article you linked), a half-orc whose parent was an orgillon, making them nearly as large as one, and many others. I do not quite see the issue here. If the DM is okay with it and gives it a green light, is there really a problem?
Yes, there is. I enjoy each of the races as being distinct. Why be an elf if one of the defining features can just be cloned by every random individual? Why even have world building?
Sorry, but how is what some other DM does at their table a problem for you at yours? How does that affect you in any way?
Some other DM? That’s the problem with your argument. It always assumes I’m the DM. It affects me if I don’t have control of the table.
If you have a problem with how your DM handles things, that's something you need to take up with them, not with WotC or DDB, and I am legitimately shocked that that needs to be said.
Part of the issue may well be that many DMs do not allow species with essentially infinite lifespans to retain them, a'la elves and dwarves. At my own table, for instance, elves live only two or three centuries, not twenty or thirty, and dwarves tend to run down and pass after two. Primarily because the hyper-extended lifespans of many such species make them impossible to realistically portray next to more conventionally-lived species, and if those species are forced to be Several Millenia Old all'a time I would forbid them to my players. Same the other way - some DMs extend the useful adventuring livers of creatures too short-lived to otherwise finish a campaign, such as kobolds, goblins, or aarakocra. Fine-tuning lifespans to fit their own world is something a lot of DMs do
As for size? If a player wants to run a six-foot halfling suffering from gigantism, bereft of his home and feeling out of place within a world he never wanted to inhabit? If the DM's down, who cares. If a player says "I want to play a goliath, but like...the shortest, meanest goliath, with the most aggressive Italian-Short-Guy attitude I can manage" and the DM's down? Again, who cares. It's a number, it rarely comes up in play anyways since D&D is so bloody godawful at dealing with size in any real mechanical sense.
I'm fine with outliers in terms of size. Like a small goliath or a halfing with gigantism, I just would still want a desription of the general sizes to give the baseline for normal. I guess we'll see what actually comes of race descriptions in the future.
Outliers sure. But getting rid of it completely? It just feels unnecessary.
Ok, so just finished reading about the upcoming changes at this article https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2021/10/dd-wotc-unveils-new-rules-for-monsters-and-player-races.html and I can get over, and even support getting rid of purely cultural identifiers such as alignment and languages. But when did age and size become an issue? So now I might be part of a group with a seven foot tall 800 year old halfling? This feels ridiculous. Also, I guess charm and hold person spells are going to be nerfed since many creatures are going to be reclassified into another type.
Hello MayhemIsEverywhere,
You can encounter that now. In almost every group I have been in there has been at least one person who wanted to be a specific race, but wanted to be in some way exceptional. A gray Eladrin who was cursed to be divorced from the seasons, a dwarf as tall as a man (it was funny to me that this was mentioned in the article you linked), a half-orc whose parent was an orgillon, making them nearly as large as one, and many others. I do not quite see the issue here. If the DM is okay with it and gives it a green light, is there really a problem?
Yes, there is. I enjoy each of the races as being distinct. Why be an elf if one of the defining features can just be cloned by every random individual? Why even have world building?
Sorry, but how is what some other DM does at their table a problem for you at yours? How does that affect you in any way?
Some other DM? That’s the problem with your argument. It always assumes I’m the DM. It affects me if I don’t have control of the table.
If you have a problem with how your DM handles things, that's something you need to take up with them, not with WotC or DDB, and I am legitimately shocked that that needs to be said.
Or, counterpoint. Just leave size and age alone and if a player wants to be different they can bring it up with the DM.
Ok, so just finished reading about the upcoming changes at this article https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2021/10/dd-wotc-unveils-new-rules-for-monsters-and-player-races.html and I can get over, and even support getting rid of purely cultural identifiers such as alignment and languages. But when did age and size become an issue? So now I might be part of a group with a seven foot tall 800 year old halfling? This feels ridiculous. Also, I guess charm and hold person spells are going to be nerfed since many creatures are going to be reclassified into another type.
Hello MayhemIsEverywhere,
You can encounter that now. In almost every group I have been in there has been at least one person who wanted to be a specific race, but wanted to be in some way exceptional. A gray Eladrin who was cursed to be divorced from the seasons, a dwarf as tall as a man (it was funny to me that this was mentioned in the article you linked), a half-orc whose parent was an orgillon, making them nearly as large as one, and many others. I do not quite see the issue here. If the DM is okay with it and gives it a green light, is there really a problem?
Yes, there is. I enjoy each of the races as being distinct. Why be an elf if one of the defining features can just be cloned by every random individual? Why even have world building?
Sorry, but how is what some other DM does at their table a problem for you at yours? How does that affect you in any way?
Some other DM? That’s the problem with your argument. It always assumes I’m the DM. It affects me if I don’t have control of the table.
What is the 'defining feature' of elves that's being given out to other races here? Just their height? Unless I've misunderstood something, the actual elven culture, and their racial features like trance and fey ancestry etc are not being handed out to all races. Unless I'm misunderstanding something here, I don't see how someone being able to play a short elf or a tall halfling impacts your ability to play your elf the way you want to?
While I'm fine with people RPing outliers from racial norms culturally and physically, I do hope though that they still keep the general descriptions in when writing new races, or reprinting old ones. It's one thing to allow players to make their characters deviate from the norm, but that norm should also still be established.
“The typical life span of a player character in the D&D multiverse is about a century, assuming the character doesn’t meet a violent end on an adventure. Members of some races, such as dwarves and elves, can live for centuries.”
This is just flat out unhelpful IMO and I hope they keep the traditional age descriptions. It doesn't give everyone elven life spans but it's just vague and doesn't give any useful information for the specific race. This is just bad IMO. Not really stealing elves thunder imo but just thoroughly unhelpful and uninteresting.
“The typical life span of a player character in the D&D multiverse is about a century, assuming the character doesn’t meet a violent end on an adventure. Members of some races, such as dwarves and elves, can live for centuries.”
This is just flat out unhelpful IMO and I hope they keep the traditional age descriptions. It doesn't give everyone elven life spans but it's just vague and doesn't give any useful information for the specific race. This is just bad IMO. Not really stealing elves thunder imo but just thoroughly unhelpful and uninteresting.
That is kind of the spirit of my concerns with all the removals. There was nothing stopping a player from having an 8ft tall Halifling, or an evil High Elf, or whatever, apart from the DM. That still hasn't changed - if the DM vetoes a concept, it's finished. By not telling me the typical height of a Halfling, how am I supposed to know how tall they normally are? It removes the ability to feel what your baseline is, and therefore what a character should feel.
I have no problem with what other DMs or even players do. Even as DM, I'd probably allow funky concepts like tiny Goliaths. But I need a baseline to work with. Is a 7ft Goliath a midget, or merely small? Is he going to have a complex about it? Well, depends on whether Goliaths are usually 7.5ft or 9ft. It's a lot harder to get a real grip on a character of you don't know what's normal.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Part of the issue may well be that many DMs do not allow species with essentially infinite lifespans to retain them, a'la elves and dwarves. At my own table, for instance, elves live only two or three centuries, not twenty or thirty, and dwarves tend to run down and pass after two. Primarily because the hyper-extended lifespans of many such species make them impossible to realistically portray next to more conventionally-lived species, and if those species are forced to be Several Millenia Old all'a time I would forbid them to my players. Same the other way - some DMs extend the useful adventuring livers of creatures too short-lived to otherwise finish a campaign, such as kobolds, goblins, or aarakocra. Fine-tuning lifespans to fit their own world is something a lot of DMs do
As for size? If a player wants to run a six-foot halfling suffering from gigantism, bereft of his home and feeling out of place within a world he never wanted to inhabit? If the DM's down, who cares. If a player says "I want to play a goliath, but like...the shortest, meanest goliath, with the most aggressive Italian-Short-Guy attitude I can manage" and the DM's down? Again, who cares. It's a number, it rarely comes up in play anyways since D&D is so bloody godawful at dealing with size in any real mechanical sense.
I'm fine with outliers in terms of size. Like a small goliath or a halfing with gigantism, I just would still want a desription of the general sizes to give the baseline for normal. I guess we'll see what actually comes of race descriptions in the future.
Outliers sure. But getting rid of it completely? It just feels unnecessary.
PCs are the outliers. The Racial Stats that are presented in the game isn't meant to represent the NPCs or race in general, only the PCs and options that they have when playing that race. It might be unnecessary at your table, but I can guarantee you that it isn't at a lot of other tables.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Ok, so just finished reading about the upcoming changes at this article https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2021/10/dd-wotc-unveils-new-rules-for-monsters-and-player-races.html and I can get over, and even support getting rid of purely cultural identifiers such as alignment and languages. But when did age and size become an issue? So now I might be part of a group with a seven foot tall 800 year old halfling? This feels ridiculous. Also, I guess charm and hold person spells are going to be nerfed since many creatures are going to be reclassified into another type.
Hello MayhemIsEverywhere,
You can encounter that now. In almost every group I have been in there has been at least one person who wanted to be a specific race, but wanted to be in some way exceptional. A gray Eladrin who was cursed to be divorced from the seasons, a dwarf as tall as a man (it was funny to me that this was mentioned in the article you linked), a half-orc whose parent was an orgillon, making them nearly as large as one, and many others. I do not quite see the issue here. If the DM is okay with it and gives it a green light, is there really a problem?
Yes, there is. I enjoy each of the races as being distinct. Why be an elf if one of the defining features can just be cloned by every random individual? Why even have world building?
I’m sorry, but this sounds like you need to either play at tables that think similarly or run games like this. I do not see why your need for races to be distinct (in this way) means that it is a problem. This loosening of racial criteria actually supports world-building because it makes room for more diversity within each race. If you do not like it, then do not feel you have to use it. Your personal preferences are not indicative of a problem however. None of my above examples are problematic narratively or from a mechanical standpoint. I was the player that had the ogrillon parent in my game and it allowed for a lot of interesting benefits that could be leveraged and problems that needed to be overcome. It was fun to play, it was different, and fortunately for me, no one was stuck on what my racial limitations should have been.
I'm fine with outliers in terms of size. Like a small goliath or a halfing with gigantism, I just would still want a desription of the general sizes to give the baseline for normal.
"Baseline normal" is a problematic concept. 'Average' or 'median' are fine, I think but calling any particularly common trait 'normal' essentially means anything outside that average/median is 'abnormal', which comes with an entire, additional set of qualitative judgements that can constitute discriminatory practice.
Sorry, probably being nitpicky but the fundamental issue at play in this discussion is the creation of a moral framework within which to portray a fictional universe within a socially acceptable context that involves real people playing this game, so I felt it important to point out.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
Ok, so just finished reading about the upcoming changes at this article https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2021/10/dd-wotc-unveils-new-rules-for-monsters-and-player-races.html and I can get over, and even support getting rid of purely cultural identifiers such as alignment and languages. But when did age and size become an issue? So now I might be part of a group with a seven foot tall 800 year old halfling? This feels ridiculous. Also, I guess charm and hold person spells are going to be nerfed since many creatures are going to be reclassified into another type.
Hello MayhemIsEverywhere,
You can encounter that now. In almost every group I have been in there has been at least one person who wanted to be a specific race, but wanted to be in some way exceptional. A gray Eladrin who was cursed to be divorced from the seasons, a dwarf as tall as a man (it was funny to me that this was mentioned in the article you linked), a half-orc whose parent was an orgillon, making them nearly as large as one, and many others. I do not quite see the issue here. If the DM is okay with it and gives it a green light, is there really a problem?
Yes, there is. I enjoy each of the races as being distinct. Why be an elf if one of the defining features can just be cloned by every random individual? Why even have world building?
I’m sorry, but this sounds like you need to either play at tables that think similarly or run games like this. I do not see why your need for races to be distinct (in this way) means that it is a problem. This loosening of racial criteria actually supports world-building because it makes room for more diversity within each race. If you do not like it, then do not feel you have to use it. Your personal preferences are not indicative of a problem however. None of my above examples are problematic narratively or from a mechanical standpoint. I was the player that had the ogrillon parent in my game and it allowed for a lot of interesting benefits that could be leveraged and problems that needed to be overcome. It was fun to play, it was different, and fortunately for me, no one was stuck on what my racial limitations should have been.
If your DM allowed you to do it, then why do the books need to take things like age and size group out? Sounds like you need to stick with tables that think similarly or run games like this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yeah it's just odd when my 8ft halfling bard can hide behind the 3ft tall Goliath legally.... Just silly imo
Yes, there is. I enjoy each of the races as being distinct. Why be an elf if one of the defining features can just be cloned by every random individual? Why even have world building?
Sorry, but how is what some other DM does at their table a problem for you at yours? How does that affect you in any way?
My problem with things like counterspell isn’t so much that it exists, it’s that so many classes can use it. Wizard sure, maybe sorcerer. But bards? Why?
Removing alignment and hard set racial ASIs I support. And I don't mind some borderline races where they can choose to be small or medium. If they do say though 'halflings can be as tall as people' etc, that I would take issue with.
Part of the issue may well be that many DMs do not allow species with essentially infinite lifespans to retain them, a'la elves and dwarves. At my own table, for instance, elves live only two or three centuries, not twenty or thirty, and dwarves tend to run down and pass after two. Primarily because the hyper-extended lifespans of many such species make them impossible to realistically portray next to more conventionally-lived species, and if those species are forced to be Several Millenia Old all'a time I would forbid them to my players. Same the other way - some DMs extend the useful adventuring livers of creatures too short-lived to otherwise finish a campaign, such as kobolds, goblins, or aarakocra. Fine-tuning lifespans to fit their own world is something a lot of DMs do
As for size? If a player wants to run a six-foot halfling suffering from gigantism, bereft of his home and feeling out of place within a world he never wanted to inhabit? If the DM's down, who cares. If a player says "I want to play a goliath, but like...the shortest, meanest goliath, with the most aggressive Italian-Short-Guy attitude I can manage" and the DM's down? Again, who cares. It's a number, it rarely comes up in play anyways since D&D is so bloody godawful at dealing with size in any real mechanical sense.
Please do not contact or message me.
I'm fine with outliers in terms of size. Like a small goliath or a halfing with gigantism, I just would still want a desription of the general sizes to give the baseline for normal. I guess we'll see what actually comes of race descriptions in the future.
Some other DM? That’s the problem with your argument. It always assumes I’m the DM. It affects me if I don’t have control of the table.
If a bard has counterspell it's because they picked it as one of their Magical Secrets spells. Which they generally don't get until level 10 unless you're a lore bard. Wizard, sorcerer and warlock are the ones that get it by default. (And warlock with its limited spells per short rest, is probably less likely to pick counterspell.)
If you have a problem with how your DM handles things, that's something you need to take up with them, not with WotC or DDB, and I am legitimately shocked that that needs to be said.
Outliers sure. But getting rid of it completely? It just feels unnecessary.
Or, counterpoint. Just leave size and age alone and if a player wants to be different they can bring it up with the DM.
What is the 'defining feature' of elves that's being given out to other races here? Just their height? Unless I've misunderstood something, the actual elven culture, and their racial features like trance and fey ancestry etc are not being handed out to all races. Unless I'm misunderstanding something here, I don't see how someone being able to play a short elf or a tall halfling impacts your ability to play your elf the way you want to?
While I'm fine with people RPing outliers from racial norms culturally and physically, I do hope though that they still keep the general descriptions in when writing new races, or reprinting old ones. It's one thing to allow players to make their characters deviate from the norm, but that norm should also still be established.
For that particular comment I was referring to age range.
Gotcha. For age range, it's a bit weird.
“The typical life span of a player character in the D&D multiverse is about a century, assuming the character doesn’t meet a violent end on an adventure. Members of some races, such as dwarves and elves, can live for centuries.”
This is just flat out unhelpful IMO and I hope they keep the traditional age descriptions. It doesn't give everyone elven life spans but it's just vague and doesn't give any useful information for the specific race. This is just bad IMO. Not really stealing elves thunder imo but just thoroughly unhelpful and uninteresting.
That is kind of the spirit of my concerns with all the removals. There was nothing stopping a player from having an 8ft tall Halifling, or an evil High Elf, or whatever, apart from the DM. That still hasn't changed - if the DM vetoes a concept, it's finished. By not telling me the typical height of a Halfling, how am I supposed to know how tall they normally are? It removes the ability to feel what your baseline is, and therefore what a character should feel.
I have no problem with what other DMs or even players do. Even as DM, I'd probably allow funky concepts like tiny Goliaths. But I need a baseline to work with. Is a 7ft Goliath a midget, or merely small? Is he going to have a complex about it? Well, depends on whether Goliaths are usually 7.5ft or 9ft. It's a lot harder to get a real grip on a character of you don't know what's normal.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
PCs are the outliers. The Racial Stats that are presented in the game isn't meant to represent the NPCs or race in general, only the PCs and options that they have when playing that race. It might be unnecessary at your table, but I can guarantee you that it isn't at a lot of other tables.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I’m sorry, but this sounds like you need to either play at tables that think similarly or run games like this. I do not see why your need for races to be distinct (in this way) means that it is a problem. This loosening of racial criteria actually supports world-building because it makes room for more diversity within each race. If you do not like it, then do not feel you have to use it. Your personal preferences are not indicative of a problem however. None of my above examples are problematic narratively or from a mechanical standpoint. I was the player that had the ogrillon parent in my game and it allowed for a lot of interesting benefits that could be leveraged and problems that needed to be overcome. It was fun to play, it was different, and fortunately for me, no one was stuck on what my racial limitations should have been.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
"Baseline normal" is a problematic concept. 'Average' or 'median' are fine, I think but calling any particularly common trait 'normal' essentially means anything outside that average/median is 'abnormal', which comes with an entire, additional set of qualitative judgements that can constitute discriminatory practice.
Sorry, probably being nitpicky but the fundamental issue at play in this discussion is the creation of a moral framework within which to portray a fictional universe within a socially acceptable context that involves real people playing this game, so I felt it important to point out.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.
If your DM allowed you to do it, then why do the books need to take things like age and size group out? Sounds like you need to stick with tables that think similarly or run games like this.